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

Re: Approval process for news/events/training is broken

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Approval process for news/events/training is broken
Date: 2007-10-15 16:51:30
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-www
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Dave,
>>> Also, looking back at the news just added today, is "EnterpriseDB
>>> Postgres"
>>> considered a "postgresql family product" or a commercial one? Maybe a
>>> guidance bullet on "downstream distributions"?
>> It's certainly not commercial, but yes that does seem worth clarifying.
> Actually, I'd argue that it's commercial.  That was what I had in mind
> when I drafted the rules.  For one thing, like the tools SW makers, EDB
> tends to bury us under press releases and need reigning in, in a way
> that OSS projects generally don't.

I agree, but should our policy be worded in respect of that one case?
Maybe find a better way under a separate bullet point for such a product?

>> It's a bit subjective. I'd be happy with any level of content from a
>> single session up, as long as it includes details so people don't spend
>> serious money getting somewhere only to find just a single session.
> Well, we need to draw some line for PostgreSQL content.  A 200-session
> conference with one session which covers using PHP with PostgreSQL
> alongside MySQL and DB2 really shouldn't go on the site.  Maybe we
> should just re-write that as "significant PostgreSQL content" and leave
> it up to WWW what "significant" is?

I think a dedicated PostgreSQL talk is most of the time significant.
Leaving it up to www would probably work fine.

>>> Training events - should we require that they include information
>>> about the
>>> cost to attend?
>> Sounds reasonable.
> Sure.  Mind you, they usually do.   We haven't had a problem with
> trainers not providing enough content, just posting too frequently.

I know, but if we have a policy, it should be complete :) It's not just
for the situation we have now, it's also for the situation we'll ahve


In response to

pgsql-www by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2007-10-15 16:56:00
Subject: Re: Approval process for news/events/training is broken
Previous:From: Andrew SullivanDate: 2007-10-15 16:28:19
Subject: Re: Approval process for news/events/training is broken

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group