public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: David Fetter <[email protected]>
To: Dave Page <[email protected]>
Cc: Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
Cc: Mike Ellsworth <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: EnterpriseDB Postgres
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 12:30:00 -0700
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<51494DB187D98F4C88DBEBF1F5F6D423022518CA@edb06.mail01.enterprisedb.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 08:18:38PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > David Fetter wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 07:32:15PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> >>> Mike Ellsworth wrote:
> > 
> >> Dave, 
> > 
> >> I know you mean well, but in this case, you created, at best, the
> >> appearance of a conflict of interest.  Next time, please ask somebody
> >> not employed at EnterpriseDB to review such pieces.
> > 
> > Actually this is probably a good idea in general. It isn't a question of
> > inappropriateness but the appearance of thus by *any* member. We have
> > quite a few prominent members employed by several prominent postgresql
> > companies.
> 
> I don't necessarily disagree, and in fact did refuse to post it and
> approve it myself (hence why it came from Peter Yarrow).
> 
> However, as I know I subjected it to the same rules as we apply to all
> articles, I didn't see a problem approving it myself. I've had to deal
> with these conflicts of interest for years on the website - for example,
> dealing with news relating to other admin tools, especially those from
> one particular company who like to try to flood us with postings from
> time to time.
> 
> If people want to make 'no self approval of your or your companies
> items' a new moderation rule, I have no problem with that.

Good idea.  We have enough people and enough diversity that making
this explicit in the moderation rules is reasonable. :)

Speaking of which, I'd love to figure out a system whereby I can
avoid (the appearance of) similar conflicts of interest in the
PostgreSQL Weekly News, as I have been in a position to announce
things I've done, are doing, etc., and have never felt comfortable
about it.  I guess that's a subject for another thread, though.

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <[email protected]> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778        AIM: dfetter666
                              Skype: davidfetter

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

view thread (80+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: EnterpriseDB Postgres
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox