>>>> done!
>>> Presumably, we don't have that problem here. A proposal could come
>>> to the funds group liason, and the laison would decide whether to
>>> fund it or not. I'd expect an arrangement of percentages of agreed
>>> funding for milestones reached.
>>>
> Ad hoc decisions by an appointed committee that is reactive to
> indiosyncratic proposals seems somewhat unethical. Perhaps I am wrong,
> but wouldn't it be better if there were a document clearly specifying
> spending priorities that was relatively accepted by consensus of a broad
> group of pg'ers, and that an opportunity to qualify for these monies
> could be promulgated to the broader group?
We have been through this over and over. We are not going to do it again.
The Liason determines where the money gets spent.
The Liason is accountable to the fundraising group.
The fundraising group is accountable to core.
If the Liason gets out of hand, he can be removed via a vote of the
fundraising group. There is a defined procedure for votes on the
fundraising site.
This is not likely to change in the near future as it is efficient and
allows for the most productivity.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
