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

Re: Planet posting policy

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Planet posting policy
Date: 2012-02-01 18:22:16
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-www
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 19:07, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> On 02/01/2012 08:43 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>>> The only technical solution I see to that that seems reasonably easy
>>> to build would be to have those who want to post these more commercial
>>> posts on their blog register for a special "permission" to do that,
>>> and that those posts ends up being moderated in the same way we
>>> moderate news today. That might work reasonably well, but it's
>>> certainly a more complex process...
>> Yeah. But that's also drifting off-topic slightly - the question in
>> debate here is "do we want to relax the rules", which a number of
>> people have been in favour of, and only one against if I'm counting
>> correctly, and if so, how do we do so without going too far in the
>> other direction? We only really need a moderation system if people
>> don't follow the guidelines.
> A poll will be mostly useless. It is going to only get responses from those
> who:
> A. Care about polls
> B. Read the poll section
> C. Are directly .Org people (versus remotely)

The reasonable tihng would be to announce the poll on *planet*. That
would make it reach exactly the people we want, which is, those who
read planet.

> The question to me really boils down to, do we want to relax the rules in an
> order to increase readership and the value (intellectual) of the content.

No, it also boils down to if relaxing the rule *does* increase
readership (probably, but *far* from certain) and the value (much more
in debate, I'd say) of planet.

> As long as the rules are as they are, we are limiting the advocacy power of
> Planet. Maybe that is what we want, maybe not but as Dave has said, most are

Is it *for* advocacy, or is it for getting "actual information" for
people who are already users? That's a separate question.

> in favor of relaxing the rules.

I don't agree with that statement. I'd say the majority is *undecided*
at this point, because they don't know what it would mean.

The majority *of the people who would be posting other things under
these rules* are in favor of it. That is hardly surprising. In fact,
if they were against it, we wouldn't even be discussing this, and the
thread would probably never have been started.

 Magnus Hagander

In response to


pgsql-www by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2012-02-01 18:56:43
Subject: Re: Planet posting policy
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2012-02-01 18:18:48
Subject: Re: Planet posting policy

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