Dan Langille wrote:
> 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
>
>
no, since josh and i have had a series of disagreements over the last
year, it was a private post to him. Usually he posts my privates posts
to the group, but this time he did not.
