On Jan 11, 2013, at 11:24 AM, Dave Page wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Jonathan S. Katz
> <jonathan.katz@excoventures.com> wrote:
>>
>> Typo aside in the original text, reading through it did not make sense:
>>
>> "Sponsorship levels are meant to provide the general public an idea of how
>> levels are determined."
>>
>> From that I glean that sponsorship levels tell me how sponsorship levels are
>> determined. Um...?
>
> Hmm, yeah - that doesn't scan so well. I'm not sure it needs a
> complete rewrite though - e.g.
>
> "Sponsorship colours are meant to provide the general public an idea
> of how levels are determined."
>
> That's still not great and could be improved.
>
> I think the important part is actually the second sentence though, as
> that's the bit we wanted to be clear on - and that reads OK to me.
After some off-list discussion, proposal for the first sentence:
"Sponsorship levels are intended to recognize the contributions organizations have made to PostgreSQL."
The idea is that we're describing the purpose of sponsorship levels, that they are used to recognize organizations
(whereasindividuals are recognized on the contributors page), and the contributions are for PostgreSQL as a whole.
Reading the second sentence further, I can see why there was debate on some of the language choices (e.g. "simple
majority"vs "majority" because as we have learned, some measures take a "supermajority" to pass through some
organizations).
Jonathan