In a recent post made to pgus-general [1], Josh Berkus makes an interesting point about the PgUS grant process. The PgUS grant process is currently designed in a way that restricts the benefits of the grants to PgUS members. It was designed like this on purpose (and currently being verified as acceptable via our attorney).

There are several reasons we decided to do it this way and here are my own (why I voted for it):

  • PgUS is all about PostgreSQL in the U.S.
  • Those who pay to participate should receive the benefits of the corporation first.
  • Commercial sponsors of PgUS should be comfortable that the money they spend shall be focused in generating interest and education about PostgreSQL within the market they spent their money in.

This is distinctly different than another PostgreSQL.Org affiliated non-profit, (of which I am also a Director) SPI. SPI is affiliated with PostgreSQL.Org via the PostgreSQL Fundraising group. SPI/PGFG is about supporting PostgreSQL financially as a whole. This means they may support David Fetter to fly to PgCon.Br to give a talk or may help PgCon.EU with SWAG purchases. I believe it is a great thing that PGFG/SPI does for the global PostgreSQL community. However it is far more arbitrary in its support than PgUS is intended to be.

This begs the question, If PgUS is all about PostgreSQL in the U.S., why does your mission say, "Work with international PostgreSQL associations to achieve common goals.". Excellent question! I would not vote in favor of spending PgUS money on an event in Europe. It isn't within our domain. That is PgEU. I would however vote in favor of financially supporting a global effort for free curriculum, or consistent advocacy material that could be translated and shared between all PostgreSQL organizations. Basically as the statement says, "to achieve common goals". Something like PgCon.EU is not a common goal that PgUS has with PgEU.

Grant post by Josh Berkus