Message-ID: <41950302.3030503@ehpg.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:37:54 -0800
From: "Gavin M. Roy" <gmr@ehpg.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dave Page <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
Cc: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>,
	Omar Kilani <omar@tinysofa.org>, pgsql-www@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Alternate PostgreSQL.org Design
References: 
 <E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4307107@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: 
 <E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4307107@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


>Not on -advocacy. That list does not, and has never contributed directly to the web stuff. That's what we have -www for.
>
>Regards, Dave
>
The idea here, and I know that people don't agree, but websites are the public marketing front for projects like this.  Advocacy has as much to do with that as the people on www that make it happen.  While documentation and such are important, one can argue that those are marketing tools, since users would be less apt to use PgSQL if the website didn't have the info.  The website is one of the things that new users evaluate, even subconsciously, before making a decision.  The more professional we look in web presence, the more comfortable users will be with PgSQL at an Enterprise level.

Ultimately I also think we need to take the vote out of the hands of the implementors and into the hands of a potential test market as they will be more representative of user impression.  I would even go as far as to suggest the radical idea of offering the vote to pgsql-general and letting the active community at large decide.
</marketing_hat>

Gavin