Re: On what we want to support: travel?

On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 07:46:03AM -0800, Michael Dean wrote:
> based on anecdotal reporting, that postgresql participation in the 100
> or so open source shows was efficacious, a necessary condition for
> growth,

. . .

> and the assumption that increased features are
> linked to increased use of the database.

None of the above (including all elided) seem to me to be
assumptions, but rather the opinions of people who have contributed
to make them happen. I should note that so far, something
approaching $0 of direct donations have been used for the above
purposes anyway; but there is another point worth making here.

All of the above are clearly the sorts of things people are doing in
the wider software -- not just free software -- world. So it would
seem to me that anyone who regards such marketing ventures as a
waste of time takes on h[im|er]self the burden of proof that
something else is a better idea. My ears are open.

> And the assumption that
> donated monies should be used to pay travel expenses.

Given that this is exactly what the thread is about, you're going to
have a tough time arguing this is an "assumption". It's a point open
for discussion, and suggesting otherwise begs the question.

> doesn't fly very well in other groups such as ICANN and is considered by
> some to be a form of corruption.

Surely you cannot seriously be holding ICANN up as the model for open
groups to follow? Disclaimer: I actually have been to ICANN
meetings, and I'm also employed as one of the people whose lives go
all twitchy when ICANN decides to drum its collective fingers.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do sir?
--attr. John Maynard Keynes