> I do think that if we initially set a narrow scope for what > the funds could be used for (similar to the above list) then > that would be good. > I'm tempted to vote +1, except for the fact that I know that > I would be struggling to find any extra time to put into the > management side of this... maybe a +1 in principle? > > > ATB, > > Mark. > Mark,
What is this management side you speak of? I invision 20% going to OSGEO of which they will take care of the management of funds, our trac hosting etc (e.g. collection and setting aside the remaining 80% for PostGIS related activities). I invision dice that will be thrown when we come up with a set of ways to spend the money and can't decide which way to use said funds. If the dice fail us, like they fall under the table so we can't see what numbers are face up, then the money sits in OSGEO coffers to be used at a later time or for some all benefiting OSGEO activity like the super duper OSGEO buildbot. Am I missing something? I'm sure I am since I try to avoid thinking too far ahead since there are too many permutations of what can happen. Thanks, Regina _______________________________________________ postgis-users mailing list postgis-users@postgis.refractions.net http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users