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: <200708050908480000@736122464>
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] We need an Advocacy wiki
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 09:08:47 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


> ------- Original Message -------
> From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
> To: Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>
> Sent: 05/08/07, 00:54:16
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [pgsql-www] We need an Advocacy wiki
> 
> And you think, that I don't recognize the *exact* level of what needs to
> be confidential or that by chance I would not communicate in discrete
> and finite detail of what a potential or existing sponsor would wish to
> be known?

Well I would have thought so, but as you seem to be using it as an argument for managing and publishing information on a wiki I'm really not sure.

> We do indeed need sponsor management, I can either do it the hard way,
> which is to draw up a new page every time or I can do it the easy way in
> which to have a dynamic interface that is easy to manage.
> 
> The hard way, is exactly why we have neglected our partners (sponsors)
> to date, because of time, and resources. It is also the exact same
> reason that Berkus has *also* not provided a new sponsors page.

So when was the last time you asked for an update? 

And even if it did become a chore, we would move it into the database (trivial for us), not use a wiki. That way we could keep the confidential info confined to the admin interface.

/D