X-Original-To: pgsql-www-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74DC69DD56C for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2005 16:48:41 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 22671-04 for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2005 16:48:38 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (server227.ethosmedia.com [209.128.84.227]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC6C69DCAE2 for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2005 16:48:38 -0400 (AST) X-EthosMedia-Virus-Scanned: no infections found Received: from [64.81.245.111] (account josh@agliodbs.com HELO [192.168.2.3]) by davinci.ethosmedia.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 8631659; Fri, 02 Dec 2005 12:51:17 -0800 From: Josh Berkus Reply-To: josh@agliodbs.com Organization: Aglio Database Solutions To: Robert Treat Subject: Re: Launching PostgreSQL KB Project Mark 2 Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 12:53:31 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 Cc: pgsql-www@postgresql.org References: <43908C03.5040205@agliodbs.com> <200512021223.36176.josh@agliodbs.com> <1133555891.4491.337.camel@camel> In-Reply-To: <1133555891.4491.337.camel@camel> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200512021253.32154.josh@agliodbs.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none] X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/30 X-Sequence-Number: 8971 Robert, > Well that's confrontational... Well, personally I would have thought it would be obvious why we wouldn't want corporate supporters participating on this list, but you demanded to know. > Let me put it this way, I have an interest in discussing how the kb will > be integrated into the main websites, but not much interest in > discussing how exactly its coded up. That said, it sounds like what you > need to know first is how it will be integrated into the site, and that > discussion should probably happen here first *before* you go about > coding something up and have yourselves painted into a corner. Actually, I see it as: 1) Functionality Requirements (other list) 2) Requirments Related to Integration (this list) > They can't read the archives? You can't bullet-point it for them? To be more clear: Techdocs is not a Knowledge Base. The previous tread discussed re-implementing Techdocs, not a creating a KB, therefore it is not applicable except in a few details where there's overlap. > Which is why I am confused. Should we discuss the requirements here > *first*, and then those interested in coding them up can join the > project and discuss the details there? Integration requirements, yes. Functional requirements, no. The functional requirements should be defined by the people who are actually going to develop and/or fund the software. > To do otherwise would seem to add > an a priori condition that we're going to use geviks kb project as our > solution before we even have the requirements. Per my previous e-mail, that's undecided. Please read it again and stop jumping to conclusions. -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco