> whoa... what makes the techdocs guide tech unfinished? AFAIR Justin was
> waiting on the switching of the techdocs site to a new VM, at which
> point he was going to convert the whole site to the "guides" format. The
> zwiki engine seems thorough enough for our use, and runs on postgresql,
> so I don't see any reason to completely dump it.
I was under the impression that Justin intended to add user authentication and
methods to give some pages limited editing rights. For example, I wouldn't
put any "adventures" articles up under the current authentication-free Zwiki
structure; my articles are leading up to a PostgreSQL book, eventually, so
they need a copyright statement and to be editable only by me.
We definitely should keep the existing Zwiki for stuff like the GUI list. And
I'd like to move the Book Reviews over to it.
> Um.. what exactly is the process for contributing articles for their
> site. Near as I can figure you send in an article and someone is *paid*
> to convert it and put it on their site. I don't think we have the avenue
> available to us.
We don't? Dammit. ;->
> More to the point they're are probably beating the pants off of us on
> this issue because they have consistent, professional direction for
> their entire web presence. Other projects have achieved this, but we
Lords, I could tell you things about OpenOffice.org ... but I won't.
> I think the target of advocacy is different, simply because you need a
> more centralized message in place than what I think we're trying to
> achieve with techdocs. Not that it doesn't need a lot of work...
Just that Advocacy needs dynamic content that can be edited by a limited list
of users with a minimum of technical sophistication. FOr example, we could
really use a dynamic ticker of "postgresql in the news" that anyone on this
list can submit to, without a CVS account ....
Aglio Database Solutions
In response to
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Sean Chittenden||Date: 2003-04-14 18:46:39|
|Subject: Re: MySQL and RHDB news; 8.0 troll|
|Previous:||From: Robert Treat||Date: 2003-04-14 17:08:32|
|Subject: Re: Tech Docs and Consultants|