Re: On what we want to support: travel?
От | Josh Berkus |
---|---|
Тема | Re: On what we want to support: travel? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200610241554.59789.josh@agliodbs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | On what we want to support: travel? (Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>) |
Ответы |
Re: On what we want to support: travel?
|
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
Andrew, > 1. Do we think it is a good idea, in general, to fund > individuals' travel, assuming such individuals are fairly prominent > members of the community? Yes. Currently, the only people capable of speaking for PostgreSQL who also have jobs that pay them to do public speaking frequently are me, Bruce, and Gavin (plus others in Japan). There are more than 100 open source conferences a year; we can't possibly cover them all with the three of us. Travel sponsorships allow other members of our community to promote and educate about PostgreSQL in many, many more places. I know that if we'd had travel money available in 2003, I would have gone to conferences in Brazil and Indonesia to promote PostgreSQL -- that was a big part of the reason why Robert Treat and Greg Mullaine started to put together a non-profit in the first place. > 2. If the answer to (1) is "yes", what weight do such cases > carry compared to other possible expenditures, such as paying coders > for features; paying for hardware or network service; paying for > community presence at exhibitions (e.g. getting a "commercial" booth > at a trade fair); paying for marketing such as advertisements, > conference "swag", release CDs, and the like; paying for tools for > individual (or groups of) developers, such as real copies of the SQL > standard; or even paying for entry to the "industry" groups or > standards like TPC, ANSI, &c.? The list is not exhaustive; make up > your own case. Personally, I think it's co-equal with the things above categorically, *except* for paying for a commercial booth at a conference, which I feel should be our lowest priority if we have cash just lying around. It's the most expensive item, with the lowest benefit to the community. So, I think our spending priorities should be: 1) PostgreSQL online infrastructure 2) Everything else including travel 3) Commercial booths. Determining the priorities within (2) should be based on the individual opportunity. i.e. how much does it cost, and what does the community get out of it? And how much money do we have? -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: