> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > 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?
I'm expressing a clear principle. I don't see this principle as being
hard to implement. "Peace talks, sponsored by Group X", will be unlikely
to bring the other party to the table.
I want to demonstrate a level playing field, so that all feel welcome to
contribute. I am worried that if things get out of balance then it will
go badly for us in the future. Unfortunately, those are principles, not
clear guidelines, so yes, what I have asked for raises many questions.
--
Simon Riggs
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
--
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