Feedback-ID: ie0a040ee:Fastmail
Message-ID: <1e3a83a1-1ca2-4577-9c92-5b4e7f007ad7@eisentraut.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 07:14:39 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Upcoming Events on front page
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
 "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>
Cc: Tobias Bussmann <t.bussmann@gmx.net>, pgsql-www@lists.postgresql.org
References: <1D92AE1C-83A0-4C3D-950C-DBA07422BD89@gmx.net>
 <ffbb8e3a-9def-4532-8e9c-85e4f2a074e8@postgresql.org>
 <F8E3BA26-63ED-4733-AE7F-A8A861FCA39F@gmx.net>
 <058dacc5-c910-494d-a090-7dc492f868c4@postgresql.org>
 <CABUevEw55mh=Q-WB0mGsAKUJH05A5Ox8X=OnP8jW8tCfMyUcvA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: de-DE, en-US
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CABUevEw55mh=Q-WB0mGsAKUJH05A5Ox8X=OnP8jW8tCfMyUcvA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1e3a83a1-1ca2-4577-9c92-5b4e7f007ad7%40eisentraut.org>
Precedence: bulk

On 06.09.25 00:05, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 8:21 PM Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org 
> <mailto:jkatz@postgresql.org>> wrote:
> 
>     On 9/4/25 4:19 PM, Tobias Bussmann wrote:
>      >> There was a long discussion about this when the Recognized
>     Community Conferences guidelines rolled out, and I can't quickly
>     find the thread. The tl;dr is that we agreed to give preference to
>     community conferences on the homepage, but still need to show at
>     least 2 non-recognized events on the page, should more than zero exist.
>      >
>      > Wow, thanks for the explanation! I'm not sure if I like the
>     outcome, but at least this isn't a bug.
> 
>     I don't particularly want to re-open the original debate - but - I
>     wouldn't be opposed to further expanding the number of events
>     display on
>     the homepage to 9 or 10. We have more events in PostgreSQL today
>     than we
>     did before.
> 
> Given the amount of time that has passed since back then, I think it 
> would be fair to discuss the concept again. But a good way to do that is 
> to not start over from the beginning, but to go through the old thread, 
> and then propose a new solution that to at least some level 
> considers the arguments made back then.

Ideally, both the algorithm and the discussion that led to it would be 
documented, like in a footnote or something.

This kind of algorithmic highlighting of certain things over other 
things without further explanation is the kind of thing that people 
constantly complain about in the realm of social media.  We have an 
opportunity to be more transparent here.