Re: Planet posting policy

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

> We currently have a strict posting policy for planet.postgresql.org
> (http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Planet_PostgreSQL), which has been
> applied in such a way that it prevents users posting anything to their
> syndicated blogs which may be remotely considered to be advertising.
> This has tripped up a number of our regular contributors in the past,
> including some senior community members who have posted technical
> content about their work which happens to be on commercial products
> around PostgreSQL.

Can you point to specific examples of blog posts that have been
self-moderated as to not appear on Planet due to our policies?
I think that would help this dicussion if we could see some actual
problematic posts. I am open to changing the wording.

> The primary test here is whether the information provided could be
> considered pure advertising. Consider what the article would look like
> if all references to any products were removed. If there is technical
> content remaining that may be considered interesting to those working
> with or around PostgreSQL, or the post is in some way describing the
> "state of the art" (as related to PostgreSQL), then it is suitable for
> syndication on Planet. In contrast, if all the remains is a list of
> features with no technical discussion around their implementation,
> then that is not suitable for syndication.

I'm not seeing much of a distinction here. The key phrase of the
existing one is "useful PostgreSQL content", which is a fairly
broad description. I'm not sure what "state of the art (as related to
PostgreSQL)" even means, honestly.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201201291021
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEAREDAAYFAk8lZKoACgkQvJuQZxSWSshKXACfcVYRphYehRIOjXC5nGKWWtY6
z7QAn11vigbf4r1D04K1k6b/73dTnD6p
=FJlM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----