Re: Planet posting policy

On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 19:47, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> -----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.
>
> I have no idea of any posts that have been self-moderated, except for
> one of my own which I posted only to the EnterpriseDB blog:
> http://blogs.enterprisedb.com/2011/08/23/postgres-enterprise-manager-i-love-it-when-a-plan-comes-together/
>
> I would have liked to have been able to post that to my regular blog
> so it appeared on Planet, though had I thought that possible I would
> have gone into more technical detail about how the product is
> architected, and made it less "marketing" sounding.

I think that blog post itself is a very good example of content we
*don't* necessarily want on planet.

It's too bad you didn't write a version that had the technical detali
and was less marketing/pressrelease:y to compare with :-) Because
AIUI, you don't actually suggest changing the policies as far as to
allow that post as it is - it would've allowed the modified version
only?

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/