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

Re: Proposed new policy for Training events

From: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposed new policy for Training events
Date: 2009-06-30 07:59:09
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-www
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 5:09 AM, Josh Berkus<josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> All,
> We're getting some abuse on the training event front, and I'd like to pass a
> new policy:
> Frequency: no company may list more than three training events per quarter.
>  If the company has more training than that, they are encouraged to post
> links to their own web page schedule.

That really doesn't work as the listings are supposed to in a calendar
of sorts. Besides, whilst the latest posts are most certainly taking
the mickey, most other companies will post more than 3 events per
quarter, quite legitimately. I feel it's important for our events
listings to show the breadth and frequency of the training available.

> Content: Training events will include *one paragraph* of descriptive
> content, describing in a factual way what the contents of the training is.

I see no reason for this restriction. Look back at past submissions
from companies other than the one that triggered this. Most will have
more than one paragraph of text, and most is useful information.

>  Hyperbole, competitive messaging, and offers of free gifts are prohibited.

No objections.

> Currently xxxx is spamming us with more than 20 training events
> offering a free iPod and containing ALL CAPS and many exclamations!!!!!! as
> well as about 2 pages of text each.

Meh. I should read the whole of your message before going out of my
way not to mention the name of the company involved.

The fact is, we *only* seem to get complaints about this particular
company, who operate right on the border of what most of us seem to
consider acceptable, and most of those third party complaints seem to
be un-verifiable which has previously meant we've not taken any action
against them. I think we should take all these past complaints and
problems into account, make the assumption that there isn't a
continuous stream of smoke without an actual fire and stop accepting
postings from them in the future.


In response to


pgsql-www by date

Next:From: Guillaume SmetDate: 2009-06-30 12:11:31
Subject: Re: Permission problems on pgfoundry
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2009-06-30 04:09:39
Subject: Proposed new policy for Training events

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group