Received: from localhost (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0418C9FB69E for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2007 02:10:54 -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 82494-02 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2007 02:10:37 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (server227.ethosmedia.com [209.128.84.227]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFAB89FB4F6 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2007 02:07:09 -0300 (ADT) X-EthosMedia-Virus-Scanned: no infections found Received: from [63.195.55.98] (account josh@agliodbs.com HELO [192.168.2.3]) by davinci.ethosmedia.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 12874486 for pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org; Wed, 08 Aug 2007 22:11:23 -0700 From: Josh Berkus Organization: PostgreSQL @ Sun To: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org Subject: Re: EnterpriseDB Postgres Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 22:08:08 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <46BA170E.9060709@postgresql.org> <20070808193000.GB7134@fetter.org> In-Reply-To: <20070808193000.GB7134@fetter.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200708082208.08106.josh@agliodbs.com> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200708/198 X-Sequence-Number: 11768 All, > > 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. :) I don't have a problem with that. Actually I usually try to get someone from -WWW to approve anything I post, including stuff for the Project. Otherwise I never know what stupid cut-and-paste errors I might miss. I'll point out though that our policy on News/Events/Training postings has always been one of permissiveness. For example, there has been an ongoing one-upsmanship in the Training postings for the last 6 months and WWW has refused to get involved in constraining it. If we started deciding that we'd block certain kinds of news posts (like those with too much hyperbole) then that would be a major change of direction for our website approval policy. It would also make it highly politicized. > 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. I haven't seen a problem except that I'm not keen on your reporting on flamewars, even resolved ones. But that's an editorial decision that you and I will continue to disagree on. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco