On 30 Oct 2006 at 13:59, Michael Dean wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 11:59:20AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >
> >> So far, the consensus is that our priorities are as follows:
> >>
> >
> > I don't see any consensus at all. So far, almost everyone who has
> > had anything to say about this is in fact a member of the funds
> > group. That makes me pretty uneasy.
> >
> >
> >> I haven't seen any disagreement with that specific ranking of priorities,
> >>
> >
> > I have: we just had someone objecting to the very idea of either
> > speaker subsidies or trade show booths. And that was one of the only
> > people who are not part of the funds group to speak.
> >
> > A
> >
> >
> When I made a suggestion to Josh Berkus that all of those things in
> priority 2 needed to be broken out, and when I suggested that the broad
> membership be given a chance to rank more highly specified items, and
> when I suggested that trade shows and booths be ranked as well, in terms
> of attendance, control and size, Josh summarily dismissed my suggestions
> aS BEING A WASTE OF TIME! I was about to leave the group in disgust --
> in the past I offered to buy space on the website, to write, etc. but
> his summary dismissal of what to me is just plain common sense made me
> mad! I realize that everyone is a volunteer, but ...
Micheal,
Are you referring to this post?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2006-10/msg00181.php
--
Dan Langille : Software Developer looking for work
my resume: http://www.freebsddiary.org/dan_langille.php
