Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Planet posting policy

From: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>
To: pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Planet posting policy
Date: 2012-04-18 16:02:31
Message-ID: 4e9fc18b71522bca9287c4860daddbc9@biglumber.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-www
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160


Robert Haas wrote:
> It seems to me that people are already playing fairly fast and loose
> with the policy.  For example:

Thanks for calling this out. I agree there have been some 
posts of late that are outside both the current guidelines, 
and even the proposed looser ones. The question is, who calls 
them out and what do we do about it? I call them out from time 
to time - sometimes it works, sometimes it leads to long threads 
with no action. Part of having a clear policy of course, is that 
it removes subjectiveness and doesn't make people feel like they 
are being picked on.

> http://lethargy.org/~jesus/writes/omnios has nothing obviously to do
> with PostgreSQL whatsoever.

Agreed. Very cool, but very off topic.

> http://michael.otacoo.com/postgresql-2/postgres-xc-1-0beta1-released/
> is about a fork of PostgreSQL.  Is it more acceptable to blog about
> that than about Greenplum or PPAS because it's open source?  If so,
> fine, but I don't think I've seen that spelled out anywhere.

It does seem like more of an -announce, but we've never discouraged 
cross-posting, so to speak. Separately, yes, I think we do give more leeway to 
things that are not just Postgres-related, but Postgres-like in 
licensing and source availablity. Whether we should spell this out 
in the policy, I don't know. To be honest, posts like this do make me 
reconsider my policy of not making a post for each Bucardo or DBD::Pg 
beta / new release.

> http://pyrseas.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/database-user-interfaces-pagination/
> has some connection to PostgreSQL, but only really in that it's
> talking about a technology stack that has PostgreSQL buried in it
> somewhere, not because there's anything actually relevant to
> PostgreSQL in that particular blog post.

I'm okay overall with this one, probably because it is so short and is 
part of an ongoing series (kind of), but I see your point.

> At the end of the day, I don't really care that much what content we do
> or don't allow on Planet, but seems pretty clear that EnterpriseDB and
> 2ndQuadrant are self-censoring out of an abundance of caution and a
> desire to play by community rules, and other people aren't doing that
> to the same degree.

I do care what content we allow, as we don't want a firehose, we want things 
to be relevant to most readers, and we want the planet to reflect positively on 
the project as a whole. If you feel people or companies are not playing by 
the current rules, feel free to name them here. I think most are playing 
by the rules, but I usually skim planet via RSS on my phone; I will make more 
of an effort in the future to consider appropriateness and report here.


- -- 
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201204181200
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEAREDAAYFAk+O5XgACgkQvJuQZxSWSsiGBwCghjdUBjIFIn+9bDKle0OcmvpT
VnQAnRpFbJWLquRnIDkOY9nDHMwKbAow
=7Xrb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



In response to

Responses

pgsql-www by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2012-04-18 16:10:12
Subject: Re: Planet posting policy
Previous:From: Marko KreenDate: 2012-04-18 14:07:34
Subject: Re: PgBouncer 1.5.1

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group