Subject: Re: Launching PostgreSQL KB Project Mark 2

From: "Magnus Hagander" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 18:24:19 +0100

Wow, talk about missing a lot by just being away for one day :-) I'll
bring a ocuple of mails together into one here...

> > If we are going to discuss adding a KB to the postgresql.org sites, 
> > shouldn't we discuss it right here?
> 
> No, for two reasons:  (1) the KB project includes contacts 
> for some corporate supporters who aren't prepared for the 
> "attitude" common from some posters on this (and other) main 
> postgresql mailing lists,

These are the same companies who keeps pledging to "work with the
community" all the time? Apparantly this only applies to parts of the
community, and in certain cases... Seems I have a lot of statements to
reevaluate.

If they're not willing to discuss things with the project members, can
this really be called a community project? I'm doubtful.

> > And didn't we have this discussion
> > of requirements once already before Gevik looked into drupal?
> 
> I reviewed that thread, which was talking strictly about recreating 
> Techdocs.   The KB will be something slightly different.   
> Also, many of 
> the present participants weren't there for that discussion.

So can we hear what this big difference is, that's so big that it's no
longer on-topic for a list about the website?

Also, will this KB cover what's on techdocs today, or do we need both
this and a replacement for techdocs?

> > And what does
> > that project have to do with the kb? From what I have looked at it 
> > before, it was a .net based cms software, has the direction of that 
> > project changed? I'm confused.
> 
> Well, according to Gevik it's a tool for building KBs.  
> Whether or not it meets our requirements, I don't know, since 
> the requirements aren't yet defined.

Then it sounds like an extraordinary *bad* place to put the discussion.
If something other than Kennisgres is choseen, then *100%* of the other
posts on that list are going to be off-topic. (Unlike say -www, where
they would at least be about the same project) Just seems - eh, sorry
there is only one way to say this - stupid. It may not be the intentino,
but it certainly sends a message.

> More seriously, there's a 3rd reason: there are several 
> people involved with the KB who have no interest in general 
> WWW activity.

Equally seriously, what about all those who have no interest in
Kennisgres and are just interested in building a PostgreSQL KB?

It's not like -www is a high traffic list.

Regarding what goes where:

> Actually, I see it as:
> 1) Functionality Requirements (other list)
> 2) Requirments Related to Integration (this list)

I can certainly see the point of this. But why is this a technical list
for a *different project*?

Normally, here's how I'd see something like this done:
You have a separate list that discussed *just functionality
requirements*, producing a specification of exactly what features are
wanted, that's fine. 
Once this is done, you bring in the technical people (this is the -www
list, in case that's unclear) and ask them what the best way to do this
*within current frameworks if possible* is, and what it'll tkae.

Gavin wrote:

> I mentioned this to Josh off-list but I am concerned about 
> introducing yet another technology platform (.net) for PgSQL 
> based sites.

Yes, I'd say this is a *huge* problem. If it really is .net - the
pgFoundry page says PHP?

Josh, in your original mail you said that there were companies willing
to put resources behind such a project. Does this mean that they will
dedicate staff time to the *continous maintaining of such a site in the
future*, or just that they're interested in getting it started?

Because frankly, we clearly don't have enough people to maintain what we
have *today* (if we did, someone wouldn't have been able to hack into
our server through a piece of software that wasn't properly updated). If
we're going to add more to it, there'd better be some committment behind
it for actual maintenance. 

The website sub-project has a history of people being interested in
doing the fun parts of getting things started, and then just dumping it
before it goes into maintenance. IMNSHO, risking yet another of those is
a very bad idea.

> Can Alexy's 
> framework that runs the main pgsql site work for techdocs/ 
> knowledge base?  If not what's wrong with it? 

For techdocs replacement? Absolutely.
For a general knowledge base? Absolutely.
For this special knowledge base? I dunno, because we have not been told
what the requirements are.

While I hope that's not the actual intention, you have to realise what
kind of a message you're sending with this, Josh. And it's basically
"you guys had a discussion, came to the wrong conclusion, so we're going
to do this over here instead".

That said, I'll jump into the other thread about what to actually do in
the next mail.

//Magnus

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:29:03 -0800

People:

This is the last I have to say on the subject:

pgFoundry is a Postgresql.org resource, not some external company site. 
  The mailing list we set up is on pgFoundry, and has public archives. 
People from this list who are interested in helping us build a KB within 
a short timeline are welcome to participate.  People who just want to 
look out for serious problems but don't want to participate can read the 
archives.  I have no intention wasting any more of my very limited time 
arguing on this list to no point.

--Josh Berkus

---

From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 01:31:45 -0400 (AST)

> this really be called a community project? I'm doubtful.

First, I'm not for or against the "corporate KB project", just playing 
devils advocate here ...

But ... does anyone here have the time to implement a KB "as the 
community"?  If so, and since as several have pointed out, this has been 
discussed to death previously, why are we not just implementing it and 
moving forward, regardless of the 'corporate KB project'?

Gavin has put forth Framework(sp?) as a basis for this ... so why not jump 
on that and just do it, instead of arguing the merits/drawbacks of the 
Corporate Project that Josh is working on?

> future*, or just that they're interested in getting it started?

In theory, I would think that if done properly, the community should be 
able to sustain things once the seed has been created ... no?

> it for actual maintenance.

In Josh's defence on this one ... you give him a pretty strong argument 
why this can't be community built, but has to be done by a corporate 
"group" ... manpower.

We had this thread/discussion several months back about implementing a 
replacement for techdocs/KB ... but, to date, has anything been done?  The 
feel I've gotten is that everything was resting on 'Gevik' for this, so 
that became our single point of failure ...

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [email-masked]           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664