public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
To: Dave Page <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL WWW <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Planet posting policy
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:57:34 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+OCxozNc4MwTGfCQ+XLmXPvbC-ouoK21U-N+9UxEbu57z2weA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+OCxow3T9g-Cpt+B437vgCoYL+y83+LCYVw8Z42SnW3ciUB1g@mail.gmail.com>
<CABUevEz9xp0+c0Bh4YYZ58evK1kOCKEiGK9GX8MifHZGcHMXCQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+OCxow8KZnVemHGozRkZ6-Yg232jop5rgFpJuJq+yEpXTO1Fg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEYLb_XVOgRx5YJhFDdQx3GcGri0s_agD7Wv+jLMpX5SY6QxJg@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+OCxozNc4MwTGfCQ+XLmXPvbC-ouoK21U-N+9UxEbu57z2weA@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 07:50:20AM +0000, Dave Page wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 29 January 2012 18:42, Dave Page <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I was trying to find a way to allow posts that aren't purely technical
> >> in nature. For example, if a company started a new website that
> >> happened to have 10TB of geo data stored in Postgres, I'd want to hear
> >> about it as a good example of Postgres being used in "state of the
> >> art" ways, even if it wasn't necessarily a post about how they did it
> >> in technical detail.
> >
> > Are you sure that that wouldn't be allowed under our current policy?
> > I'd have thought that was fine, provided that it was actually useful.
>
> It might have been under the policy itself, however we've been
> interpreting that based on the guidance notes which are pretty strict,
> and essentially only allow posts of a purely technical nature.
I think the real risk we have in relaxing the rules is that postings
will be made who's _intent_ is to highlight a commercial product. Once
the indent is commercial promotion, the blog itself isn't very
interesting to others.
We have succussfully blocked such postings --- the big question is
whether we can allow postings based on commercial products without
having postings that are "intended" to be promotional.
I think Dave or Josh mention the pitfall tangentially --- if someone's
intent is promotional, they might blog about how to do X with some
commercial product, then, next week, show how to do Y with some
commercial product. Imagine them thinking, "Oh, I haven't blogged about
my commercial product in a while, and the Postgres blog is very popular,
let me think of how to do that again."
I am not saying that will happen, but it might happen if we aren't as
clear as we are now in the guidelines. And if our rules are not as
clear as they are now, we then have to guess what their intent was, and
pick apart the blog post to get facts to support our interpretation.
I think everyone kind of agrees our rules are too tight, but it is
unclear how to relax them _clearly_.
--
Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
view thread (52+ 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]
Subject: Re: Planet posting policy
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