Josh Berkus's platform on political activity, was: money handling

[Josh Berkus]

Anthony,

> FWIW, Linux Australia receives a lot of support from IBM (it's been an
> ongoing major sponsor of linux.conf.au), and also actively participates
> in topics of copyright and patent reform. As it happens, Rusty Russell
> has been our key IP guy for a few years now, and is also an IBM employee.

That was hypothetical example.  I don't know for a fact that IBM would 
withhold donations to a vocally anti-SW-patent organization.   I was making 
an example of why it was necessary to *check* with the member organizations 
before proceeding.

> To put it another way: if PostgreSQL were to think patents are good,
> and SPI were to think patents were bad, but PostgreSQL is good; is
> there any reason for PostgreSQL to stop using SPI for its finances,
> just because they're arguing different sides of an issue in public?

Where it would become a critical issue is if it affected PostgreSQL's (or any 
other member project's) ability to raise funds and/or run their project.  And 
the only way we can know that is if we check with those projects.

Are you arguing that it's *not* necessary to check?   If not, what are you 
arguing?

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Project
Core Team Member
(any opinions expressed are my own)