Subject: Alternate PostgreSQL.org Design

From: Omar Kilani <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:38:01 -0500

Hi Again,

We would like to put forward an alternate design to the current wwwdevel 
design.

It is available at: http://postgresql.tinysofa.com/

We believe that it is clean, professional and simple. And it makes the 
release of 8.0 actually... exciting. :)

It is a *drop-in* replacement for the current pgweb design. No 
additional work is required to retrofit the current wwwdevel design. 
It's already done!

It validates. It is designed for 800x600 and up. And it looks pretty. :)

By clicking "About", you can see the design for the section navigation 
and the sponsor box.

We've gone through a bit of the current content and fixed it up with 
proper headings and so forth. But we believe that the content needs to 
be restructured to fit within navigational guide lines.

Some issues with the current content of the site:

* There really isn't much there. A lot of the content is obviously 
written by separate people with different writing styles. The content 
also presumes that the reader has a lot of technical knowledge.

* Many links just point to external websites without warning. The 
content should be pulled into the main site, or put under an "External 
Sources" heading.

* The overuse of subdomains is a major pain. Each subdomain uses a 
completely different layout and design. X.postgresql.org should be under 
the relevant section on the main site. Advocacy should move under 
/about/. Developers has it's own section. Tech docs should move under 
Documentation, etc.

Of course, we're willing to help out with the content if our design is 
used. :)

Regards,
Emily Boyd
  - and -
Omar Kilani

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:19:26 -0800

Omar,

> release of 8.0 actually... exciting. :)

I like the organization of content.   I find the graphics a bit HP-ish, but 
that's work-on-able.  It's certainly less crowded than our current design, 
and you've done a nice job making things a lot more intuitively findable.

> additional work is required to retrofit the current wwwdevel design.

Keen, this makes a discussion about it more useful.   Thank you for going the 
extra mile and dealing with some of the drill-down pages; it really gives us 
an idea of how you envision the site being organized.

> be restructured to fit within navigational guide lines.

No arguments here ... see the collected archives of www.

> /about/. Developers has it's own section. Tech docs should move under

We've had a consolidation plan for over a year.   Really, you should engage 
more of a dialoge in the WWW list and talk to us about what's already 
planned.

Techdocs is one hitch; article generation/editing needs to be handled by some 
kind of online text editor.   Otherwise we limit contributors to the current 
WWW team and nothing gets written.

Of course, it would also be a really good idea to have any part of the site 
requiring significant maintenance .... such as the list of GUIs, the 
contributor list, or consulting companies ... to be editable via simple text 
editor or html form instead of via raw XHTML.   This would allow the general 
pool of documentation volunteers -- which is 5x large than WWW volunteers -- 
to maintain these areas.

-- 
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:00:40 -0500 (EST)

Is the new website going to be rolled out in time for the 8.0 release,
which could be in the next few weeks?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Josh Berkus wrote:
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
>       subscribe-nomail command to [email-masked] so that your
>       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
> 

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  [email-masked]               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---

From: Robert Treat <[email-masked]>
Date: 12 Nov 2004 14:40:47 -0500

It is not outside the realm of possibility, but I'm not optimistic as
there are still a number of TODO items we need to finish up... 

Of course if folks feel this is something that needs to happen we could
possibly toss some things out, but there has been some reservations
about launching a new site at the same time as a major release.  

Robert Treat

On Fri, 2004-11-12 at 13:00, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

-- 
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:13:41 -0800

Robert,

> about launching a new site at the same time as a major release.  

Given the problems with the legacy site, I think a lot of us would rather see 
a new, even partially implemented, site than to do 8.0 on the old site.

--Josh

-- 
__Aglio Database Solutions_______________
Josh Berkus		       Consultant
[email-masked]	 www.agliodbs.com
Ph: 415-752-2500	Fax: 415-752-2387
2166 Hayes Suite 200	San Francisco, CA

---

From: Alexey Borzov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 01:17:57 +0300

Hi,

> which could be in the next few weeks?

No.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:24:19 -0500 (EST)

Josh Berkus wrote:
> > about launching a new site at the same time as a major release. ?
> 

Agreed.  I have two words to summarize my opinion, "dancing elephant":

	http://janetskiles.com/ART/greeting/greet-ani/dancing-elephant.jpg

"I would rather see a dancing elephant up there than us do nothing."

But seriously, we haven't focused in the past on getting the www
completed and if we let 8.0 ship without doing the upgrade it will
languish for many more months.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:26:08 -0500 (EST)

> > which could be in the next few weeks?

OK, fair enough.  Now can someone explain how we can put out a release
evrery 8-12 months with 200-300 changes, some very complex, and we can't
get a group together to update a web site?

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:31:57 -0800

Bruce,

> get a group together to update a web site?

Because a lot less people are working on the web site, and none of them are 
paid to do so?

--Josh

-- 
--Josh

Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:32:46 -0500 (EST)

Josh Berkus wrote:
> Bruce,
> 
> > OK, fair enough. ?Now can someone explain how we can put out a release

Well, even if you take out the paid folks, PostgreSQL would be doing a
lot more than the www site is.  Remember we had no paid guys for the
first few years.

I am suggesting that we are not properly harnessing the talent we have.
That is a big part of the success in the code portion of the project.

---

From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:33:46 -0400 (AST)

> get a group together to update a web site?

Glamour? :)  Its more glamous to say "I added so-n-so feature to the 
server for this release" then "I helped code HTML for the web site"? :)

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [email-masked]           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:36:13 -0500 (EST)

> server for this release" then "I helped code HTML for the web site"? :)

OK, then how can we make the www development more glamorous?  It
certainly "looks" better than a psql prompt.  

Maybe my dancing elephant image would help in this area.  :-)

---

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 23:36:44 +0100

Josh Berkus wrote:
> > OK, fair enough.  Now can someone explain how we can put out a
> > release evrery 8-12 months with 200-300 changes, some very complex,
> > and we can't get a group together to update a web site?
>
> Because a lot less people are working on the web site, and none of
> them are paid to do so?

We put out regular releases long before (some) people started getting 
paid for their work.  If now we're only getting work done if someone's 
getting paid for it, we're in trouble.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

---

From: "Gavin M. Roy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:44:39 -0800

Honestly?  It's either the too many cooks problem, or the poor 
coordination, or the lack of a clear leader/decision maker.  It's hard 
for people who are not already involved intimately to get involved.  
It's hard to get other ideas floated without getting them shot down by 
one or two people, which seems to be the overall process killer in 
anything -www related.  It's hard to feel like people are working in the 
same direction when for language reasons or otherwise discussions turn 
derogatory, rude, and down right ugly.

I keep trying to stick my nose in to things because, at least people 
know who I am, and while not everyone agrees with me, I can at least try 
and do what I think we are all trying to do and that is make the best 
site for PostgreSQL which will impress people and be the valuable 
resource the existing site already is.

There is a lot of history in the way things are done.  People new to the 
project and people who weren't involved in the decisions made years ago 
about having sites like advocacy., developers., etc often feel out of 
the loop when they try and influence change.

We have many capable designers, developers, and webmasters here.  We 
need to find a way to work together and realize we're all ultimately 
working for the same goal.  Egos need to be put aside, and work needs to 
get done.

If I felt like there was a way to help get the site done that I could 
truly contribute to, other than offering opinions on direction and what 
not, I would be there doing it. 

Gavin

---

From: Alexey Borzov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 01:48:57 +0300

Hi,

> get a group together to update a web site?

Your question implies that there exists some "group". Well, I can easily name 
people doing the work on the server. Can you name the people doing the work on 
the website?

How much attention does the Core actually pays to the website?

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:34:50 -0500 (EST)

> people doing the work on the server. Can you name the people doing the work on 

I can name a few, but not enough, as you suggest.  The point is not who
we have but how are we making it easy for more people to get involved.

> How much attention does the Core actually pays to the website?

Well, I assumed there were enough people involved that having core in
there wasn't going to help, but maybe I was wrong.

---

From: Gavin Sherry <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 10:55:25 +1100 (EST)

> server for this release" then "I helped code HTML for the web site"? :)

I don't buy that, because lots of other projects, which have nothing to do
with web/graphics development, have great sites.

Gavin

---

From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 23:02:15 -0400 (AST)

> That is a big part of the success in the code portion of the project.

I don't think so ... I think the big part of the success in the code 
portion is that its more "high profile" ... to me, it was a *big* thing 
when I first started submitting kernel patches for FreeBSD way back when, 
because I was working on the actually *code* ...

----

---

From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:42:17 -0400 (AST)

> getting paid for it, we're in trouble.

I agree ... IMHO, its like docs ... its not something ppl want to do, 
since they have a perception that its not as "cool' as orking on the code 
...

----

---

From: Robert Treat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:01:03 -0500

> since they have a perception that its not as "cool' as orking on the code

I don't think it is just the coolness factor. It is easier to justify needing 
to hack database code to your boss/professor/manager than it is to justify 
hacking on the website.  Same is true for a great many third party apps like 
ODBC/JDBC/PhpPgAdmin/etc...  All of these things help you solve another 
problem.  The current website, while not award winning, is functional enough 
that enough people can get work done without haveing to chip in.

---

From: Alexey Borzov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:21:25 +0300

Hi,

> we have but how are we making it easy for more people to get involved.

Exactly. So can you say: what makes it easy for people to contribute to 
PostgreSQL-web-server? What can we do to leverage the same to 
PostgreSQL-the-website?

Please also note that the whole "coding for web is not cool" talk is a red 
herring: we don't have issues with new website code (which is working) and with 
its design (we even have 2 competing designs!) right now. We have issues with 
hosting and with content.

Let's face it: content on current postgresql.org is shit. The information is 
extremely outdated [1], one cannot find useful info in obvious places like the 
current Download page [2].

People also find it easier to cut a niche in postgresql.org namespace and live 
in that instead of contributing to the website. See the bittorent "site" [3] as 
an extreme example: it has no info other than the links to the torrents --- does 
it deserve a subdomain of its own? With an outdated version of the design as well?

Well, even you yourself have a niche where you publish PostgreSQL-related info, 
and that's not even in .postgresql.org namespace.

Our glorious advocacy group does nothing to fix the situation, they even did 
advocacy.postgresql.org a long time ago and quit supporting it soon after. I 
don't remember any content contributions for the website from these guys.

> there wasn't going to help, but maybe I was wrong.

There are some political decisions that need to be made. The current 
"showstopper" problem is the inadequate hosting of postgresql.org project. Do 
you know that current postgresql.org is on a shared box? That box is incapable 
of running PHP scripts at all, it runs them slower [4] than my own server [5] 
which is in fact P2-233 (look at the profiling info at the bottom of the pages).

Now, I think only the core has enough authority to address the current hosting 
situation. I *can* understand why you choose to do nothing about it, though.

[1] http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/related.html
[2] http://www.postgresql.org/mirrors-ftp.html
[3] http://bt.postgresql.org/
[4] http://alexey.beta.postgresql.org/
[5] http://oc.cs.msu.su/portal/

---

From: Jussi Mikkola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:20:07 +0200

Hi,

I think this is very much project management and co-operation issue.

First, I think that the web desing should be decided by those people who 
do the design. And those who don't, well, I don't see much help that we 
critisize the work of others. They surely know what they are doing. So I 
think it would be best, that both the design groups would talk together, 
and come up with a  solution they see best. And one thing that 
influences this very much, is, that one needs to think also about the 
future, and that all those people can also contribute in the future, and 
don't quit, because their work was not considered valuable. And there is 
a plenty of graphical work to do, so that there is the same look and 
feel in both web and other materials.

Secondly, I think we are not looking at the whole picture. We need some 
kind of a schedule. That schedule should have both the website, the 
translations, and the code in it. (And maybe some other things too. )We 
could then for example decide, that we postpone the 8.0 release for 1 
month, because that way we have the new website ready. The same thing 
with translations, templates etc.

Schedule is also important for the point, that now there has been 
complaints about designs, and nobody ever considers, is it better that 
what we have know? When can we have it ready? We try to have it perfect, 
and fail to notice, that a good solution now, would be better, than a 
perfect solution sometime after the release.

This applies also to the release schedule. I have seen, that it will be 
released, when it's ready, but no schedule. To decide that we have a new 
design by 8.0 we also need to have a date for it. If we then later 
decide to move that date, then we do, but it gives others an idea, when 
they should have something ready. And it helps them make decisions. They 
can decide to leave some part out just to make it ready.

Finally, I think we also need a place, where this all is available for 
those who need access to it. It does not help that there is a schedule, 
if people don't know it. And telling people, what is happening and when, 
makes it a lot easier for them to take part in doing it. And then people 
having the skills, can see where their skills are bringing most value.

Rgs,

Jussi

-- 
Jussi Mikkola                    Partner, Project Manager
Bonware Oy                       gsm +358 40 830 7561
Tekniikantie 21                  tel +358 9 2517 5570
02150 Espoo                      fax +358 9 2517 5571 
Finland                          www.bonware.com

---

From: Thomas Hallgren <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 12:58:21 +0100

> additional work is required to retrofit the current wwwdevel design. 
And most people complain that although many people put forward 
suggestions, nobody really seems to contribute! Wow!

Kudos to you Omar! If it where up to me (fortunately it isn't), 
PostgreSQL would *drop this in* immediately, end of discussion!

Minor issues like not scaling perfectly, renames from "About" to 
"Overview" etc, well, they can be fixed in matter of hours.

Regards,
Thomas Hallgren