Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 12:30:00 -0700
From: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
To: Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>
Cc: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>,
	Mike Ellsworth <younicycle@gmail.com>, pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: EnterpriseDB Postgres
Message-ID: <20070808193000.GB7134@fetter.org>
References: <f9cmli$2lu4$1@news.hub.org> <200708081736.26564.peter_e@gmx.net>
	<51494DB187D98F4C88DBEBF1F5F6D423022518CA@edb06.mail01.enterprisedb.com>
	<200708081836.44990.peter_e@gmx.net>
	<46B9FA88.8000809@commandprompt.com>
	<219951fd0708081116v5c761346yc68d72b04ae9ee1d@mail.gmail.com>
	<46BA0C2F.3030305@postgresql.org>
	<20070808185920.GA7134@fetter.org> <46BA14F3.604@commandprompt.com>
	<46BA170E.9060709@postgresql.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <46BA170E.9060709@postgresql.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12)

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 <david@fetter.org> 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