> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>
> > 1. No elections, only appointees -- would be a publicity nightmare but
> > it is certainly not unheard of and in fact has shown that it works very
> > well in certain circumstances.
>
> I think if we chose a different name - like "Pg'R'Us" (with the US not
> meaning United States), or "Cmte for the Advancement of PostgreSQL" we
> could do that.
Well I wasn't actually suggesting it but as a note, Core is not
elected :P
> > 2. Hold off elections of the new board until March and have that board
> > term be 2 years. That means that every other year we would potentially
> > replace 3 or 4 depending on the year.
>
> Apologies to you both, but I would like Portland to be the place that
> these elections take place. And I would like the fall conference to
> continue to be on the West coast.
No reason to apologize, its what has been discussed and agreed upon. Its
just an issue of resolving the problem at this point. The fall
conference, considering its called West will likely always be on the
west coast (unless we somehow re-define the term west) but that isn't
really relevant to this discussion :P
>
> > 3. Have elections twice a year once the founder terms are up. Which
> > means twice a year we could lose 3 or 4.
>
> I think this is excessive.
Right. Which is why I documented my perfect world.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
Sent via pgus-board mailing list (pgus-board@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgus-board
No comments:
Post a Comment