Received: from localhost (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.184])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CA209FB669;
	Sat,  4 Aug 2007 14:15:05 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 01740-01; Sat,  4 Aug 2007 14:14:59 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5
Received: from developer.pgadmin.org (developer.pgadmin.org [63.246.23.140])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCEC59FB2BD;
	Sat,  4 Aug 2007 14:15:00 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from [172.16.0.64] ([89.243.181.163]) (authenticated bits=0)
	by developer.pgadmin.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l74HEPxN016892
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO);
	Sat, 4 Aug 2007 17:14:29 GMT
From: "Dave Page" <dpage@postgresql.org>
To: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
CC: "Robert Treat" <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>,
	pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org,
	"Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com>, pgsql-www@postgresql.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Message-ID: <200708041813350000@3057932291>
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] We need an Advocacy wiki
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:13:34 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200708/44
X-Sequence-Number: 12285



> ------- Original Message -------
> From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
> To: Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>
> Sent: 04/08/07, 17:56:32
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [pgsql-www] We need an Advocacy wiki
> 
> Yes, in fact it is. It is a complete pain in the butt in comparison to
> editing a wiki. If I want a page added to the .Org I have to:
> 
> A. Understand CVS
> B. Understand HTML
> C. Understand patch

Rubbish. You send the text to -www. 

Using a wiki for a public website looks completely unprofessional and gives the impression of a small organisation without the resources to do things properly. 

Implemented  in the manner being suggested leaves us with little editorial control over what is published. I'm not so much concerned with deliberate vandalism but with ensuring all published content is factually correct, non-libellous, and consistent with the projects aims and past decisions on what we should or shouldn't publish.

Regards, Dave