> > And in the end, I don't see any reason for us to *turn down* sponsorship
>
> I do. Non-profit organisations must be run "without fear or favour" and
> that includes not accepting gifts of any kind, though anonymous
> donations are always acceptable.
>
> If we don't do this, then people may get the impression that certain
> companies dominate and that can easily lead to non-contribution. So
> IMHO, being even handed is critically important to our future.
I am not sure how anonymous-only contributions are supposed to work.
EnterpriseDB employs me, but no one is supposed to know that?
EnterpriseDB sponsors a dinner at PGCon but the sponsor is a secret?
We can do anonymous-only contributions, but that is going to certainly
limit contributions. I am not sure how a company contribution will be
explained to the accounting staff if it has to be anonymous.
I think the big question is what are anonymous-only contributions trying
to solve? I have never heard of problems of favortism to contributors,
so why take a hit on contributions to avoid something no one has
reported to have happened?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
EnterpriseDB
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
--
Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy
No comments:
Post a Comment