[rhaas]

I have been a PostgreSQL hacker since 2008 and a PostgreSQL user for many years before that. The first mention of my name in the PostgreSQL commit log is in 2003, and the first version of PostgreSQL that I used was 7.something; it couldn't drop columns yet.

Now that doesn't mean that I know every person who does good work on behalf of PostgreSQL, but it does mean that I expect to recognize the names of most people who have been involved in the project to a significant degree. And the only one of those names I recognize is yours.

I tried a quick Google search of each name with "site:postgresql.org" and the only one of those names that gets any hits is, again, yours. That means that, as far as Google knows, not a single one of those people has posted even a single message to any PostgreSQL mailing list ever. Needless to say, that's not close to true for any current member of the PostgreSQL core team, or a vast number of people who are not on the core team but who are involved in the project to greater or lesser extents.

It is true that the PostgreSQL community is distributed, and not everything happens or is required to happen on postgresql.org. But I think it is nevertheless extremely difficult to argue that a group of people who have never posted there even once are a more legitimate group to be in charge of PostgreSQL's trademarks than the PostgreSQL core team.

[ahachete]

Postgres is not only about code. It's a Community. Contributions are more than code.

We value team membership by their abilities, and values. Those may prove better at building Community that C programming ability.

Yet you are wrong when you state that Core Team holds trademarks. Core is not even a legal entity (the main mistake that I've been voicing for years; it should).

Instead, there's a "loosely associated" association in Canada (PAC), with a governing board as opaque as Core, that holds the trademarks. Let's even assume this is OK.

But then, PEU (https://www.postgresql.eu/) also holds trademarks! Why? Is PEU an "official" association in any way? (if so, there should be a process and rules to become official, but there aren't).

So if Core (read: PAC) is the only one who should hold the trademarks, why is not Core/PAC also suing and publicly bashing against PEU? What makes PEU special? What makes legally PEU different from other Postgres NPOs?

I've been asking this question for years, including many times during this "debate" with Core/PEU/PAC about the trademarks. No answer.

[mattashii]

> (if so, there should be a process and rules to become official, but there aren't)

I'm not 100% sure, but you seem to be looking for https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/npos/ ?

Those organizations are then in turn listed at https://www.postgresql.org/about/donate/

[ahachete]

No, I mean the "rules" that would enable a NPO to be able to hold IP for the project. There are no rules for that, yet PostgreSQL Europe holds trademarks and domain names for the PostgreSQL project.

And nobody has asked them, neither sued them, for this. Indeed, PostgreSQL Europe joined together with Canada to sue Fundación.

But PostgreSQL Europe is no different from Fundación: just a Postgres NPO.

[mattashii]

But they are different:

PGEU is directly affiliated and acknowledged by the PostgreSQL community, whereas Fundación is not. This can be seen by the absence of Fundación on the donations page (where PGEU is listed), the lack of mailing list for Fundación (general-eu is maintained by or allocated for PGEU), and it is missing from IRC/external webpages/Local User Groups pages (#postgresql-eu is under management of PGEU). As such, you should not call Fundación a "Postgres NPO", as it is unaffiliated with the main PostgreSQL project.

Furthermore, Fundación does not seem to have a fair and transparent method for the community to get involved; instead of association members voting for the board (Patronage) the board seemingly appoints their own members (Art. 10(2) of Statutes). Lastly, Fundación has no well-defined trademark policy (only fair use, so I would be unable to start my local PostgreSQL Community (Netherlands) without infringing on the trademark).

PGEU however is transparent in who can become a member (~anyone in Europe), how the board is elected (popular vote by all members of proposed member candidates) and clearly describes in what conditions these brands may be used other than the normal fair use policy.

[CRConrad]

> But they are different:

> PGEU is directly affiliated and acknowledged by the PostgreSQL community, whereas Fundación is not.

But that just begs the question[§], doesn't it: So how does one become "affiliated and acknowledged"; why is it that PGEU is and Fundación is not? (AFAICS ATM: Cronyism, pure and simple.)

___

[§]: Unless it doesn't; I can never remember how that weird expression works.

[nightpool]

That page directly answers your question? It says "To become recognised as an NPO, the organisation must self-certify that they meet the criteria below, aimed at ensuring they meet the standards of openness expected in the PostgreSQL Community". The Fundación refuses to meet the standards outlined in this document, for example the standard that "The board of directors MUST be elected by the membership, and all members including any corporate members MUST have an equal vote."

(The page in question then also goes on to say "The PostgreSQL Core Team may recognise, not recognise, or rescind a previous recognition of any organisation without justification, regardless of whether or not the criteria above are met.", but that's irrelevant here because the baseline requirements are not even met)