| > The PostgreSQL Association of Canada; Postgres Europe; and Fundación PostgreSQL will transfer... The first two organizations are almost the same thing as the core team, for all practical purposes (unless you're a lawyer, say). There is very significant overlap in membership. A cosy arrangement, certainly. I imagine that this structure was based on certain practical considerations. Legal advice about IP and whatnot. I have been working on Postgres (primarily as a Postgres backend hacker) for over a decade now. The people from the first two groups are friends and colleagues. There are problems, but on the whole these people have a significant amount of moral authority for good reasons. They have at least gotten us this far. The idea that one of the first two organizations from your list are at risk of going rogue is beyond ludicrous. There are certainly legitimate criticisms that one could make about the project's governance, but this isn't one of them. > It's just that we disagree what the governing bodies of that community should be, believing that the current ones are a great liability and need urgent reform. This is not reform. This is a clumsily executed power grab. |
You acknowledge, yet fail to see the problem. That these two entities overlap so much is a very bad thing, and definitely a liability if things turn bad from a legal perspective.
This is one of the issues I have been calling for reform for many years. I understand how things evolve; but when problems are recognized, then it's time to fix them.
If we all agree (we do!) that a single entity should have all the IP for the project, that's what needs to be. "cosy" is not a valid reason for keeping the current status quo.
Actually, if you read the terms how our proposal to Core, we're ready to hand the trademarks if a not "cosy", but a solid, legal structure is established. Which doesn't exist today. And we consider this puts the project at risk.