Received: from localhost (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.187])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFFAE9FBB9E
	for <pgsql-advocacy-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed,  8 Aug 2007 15:49:50 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 12266-03 for
	<pgsql-advocacy-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed,  8 Aug 2007 15:49:45 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5
Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com (rv-out-0910.google.com
 [209.85.198.191])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8E439FBCE6
	for <pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org>;
	Wed,  8 Aug 2007 15:49:45 -0300 (ADT)
Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id f1so184389rvb
	for <pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 08 Aug 2007 11:49:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
	b=qG4EfK8FYYJ+yEvxdCUB06nOqFmRzeYT6tw+otUd6bIT8pqdka1FPDEBXj4KsSOvdESS09qXd/qGqANV8gMfBBRGufaWgGKQB+bsXx3vG8+Sn2NSx/rIqQQSd8L2SIhhzpH3cuvXt4XpyRajG3Ug1cdAFqkxCPBbInIiYsf5xHk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
	b=aGFdW2uB3M+ew1vs0LRF/b2Q3r9ChEZytWykecYPbhIU/jZZGQX1S8NhUmlv/rtSl6JdoulbXmSfaZch954oOrZS1JRRrQRlDSJ+3cQgO5y/rMYK2dCjZjpz58jKIMnjZ71NGp3P8umHz2/mRPpzUIfhRXFxcVRDtBXgLvndD54=
Received: by 10.141.5.3 with SMTP id h3mr574200rvi.1186598983241;
	Wed, 08 Aug 2007 11:49:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.141.77.17 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Aug 2007 11:49:43 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <219951fd0708081149u4d4ab0dfnc6e97984d530bada@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 14:49:43 -0400
From: "Mike Ellsworth" <younicycle@gmail.com>
To: "Dave Page" <dpage@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: EnterpriseDB Postgres
Cc: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <46BA0C2F.3030305@postgresql.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_2031_20225397.1186598983179"
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>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200708/165
X-Sequence-Number: 11735

------=_Part_2031_20225397.1186598983179
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 8/8/07, Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org> wrote:
>
> Mike Ellsworth wrote:
> > I was under the impression that www scrutinizes all Press Releases prior
> > to posting to the site.  Not true?
>
> We do. We check them for frequency of posting from a single company (so
> noone floods the news pages), relevancy and appropriateness. We don't
> check they are factually accurate, or try to second guess the intent of
> the companies posting them.
>
> And yes, I did approve that one - despite my employer it meets all our
> agreed acceptance criteria.
>
> Regards, Dave.


Not pointing a finger in any direction, particularly at you Dave.  My point
was that if it meets the criteria, then there should be no issue -- or
thread.  If there is a problem with the criteria or vetting process, then
focus should be redirected to *that* as an issue.

Praise in public, criticize in private.  Particularly when it's 'one of our
own'.

Thanks,
Mike

------=_Part_2031_20225397.1186598983179
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 8/8/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Dave Page</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:dpage@postgresql.org">dpage@postgresql.org</a>&gt; wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Mike Ellsworth wrote:<br>&gt; I was under the impression that www scrutinizes all Press Releases prior<br>&gt; to posting to the site.&nbsp;&nbsp;Not true?<br><br>We do. We check them for frequency of posting from a single company (so
<br>noone floods the news pages), relevancy and appropriateness. We don&#39;t<br>check they are factually accurate, or try to second guess the intent of<br>the companies posting them.<br><br>And yes, I did approve that one - despite my employer it meets all our
<br>agreed acceptance criteria.<br><br>Regards, Dave.</blockquote><div><br>Not pointing a finger in any direction, particularly at you Dave.&nbsp; My
point was that if it meets the criteria, then there should be no issue
-- or thread.&nbsp; If there is a problem with the criteria or vetting
process, then focus should be redirected to *that* as an issue.&nbsp; <br>
<br>
Praise in public, criticize in private.&nbsp; Particularly when it&#39;s &#39;one of our own&#39;.<br><br>Thanks,<br>Mike <br></div><br></div><br>

------=_Part_2031_20225397.1186598983179--