Subject: Re: Launching PostgreSQL KB Project Mark 2

From: Robert Treat <[email-masked]>
Date: 02 Dec 2005 15:03:14 -0500

On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 13:01, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> Jim Nasby, Gevik and I have been talking about launching a new Knowledge 
> Base project, since the previous one sort of foundered short of 
> implementation.  There are several corporate backers of PostgreSQL who 
> would like to see such a thing up and running in the next 6 months or 
> less, and are willing to put some resources behind it.
> 
> 
> We're just starting to discuss requirements now.   We've set up a 
> mailing list on Gevik's Kennisgres project:
> http://pgfoundry.org/mail/admin/?group_id=1000145
> ... mostly because it was convenient; one of the things we'll be 
> discussing is whether or not we will be using Gevik's Kennisgres code.
> 
> Anyway, if you are interested in designing/planning/contributing 
> to/writing for a knowledge base for postgresql.org, please join us over 
> there.  Once we have a set of funcitonal requirements and a plan, we'll 
> drag it over here to get shot full of holes.
> 

If we are going to discuss adding a KB to the postgresql.org sites,
shouldn't we discuss it right here? And didn't we have this discussion
of requirements once already before Gevik looked into drupal? Why are we
going to rehash it on yet another projects mailing list? And what does
that project have to do with the kb? From what I have looked at it
before, it was a .net based cms software, has the direction of that
project changed? I'm confused. 

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

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 12:23:35 -0800

Robert,

> shouldn't we discuss it right here? 

No, for two reasons:  (1) the KB project includes contacts for some 
corporate supporters who aren't prepared for the "attitude" common from 
some posters on this (and other) main postgresql mailing lists, and (2) 
this list is too large and diffuse to make decisions quickly on a narrowly 
defined project.

For those reasons, we're going to use a seperate mailing list to do the 
detailed planning and coordinate with this list over integration, 
infrastructure, and *broad* goals.  In other words, I'm happy to discuss 
*whether* to add the KB we build to PostgreSQL.org here, but not how to 
build it.

> And didn't we have this discussion 
> of requirements once already before Gevik looked into drupal?

I reviewed that thread, which was talking strictly about recreating 
Techdocs.   The KB will be something slightly different.   Also, many of 
the present participants weren't there for that discussion.

> And what does

Well, according to Gevik it's a tool for building KBs.  Whether or not it 
meets our requirements, I don't know, since the requirements aren't yet 
defined.

-- 
--Josh

Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

---

From: Robert Treat <[email-masked]>
Date: 02 Dec 2005 15:38:02 -0500

> this list is too large and diffuse to make decisions quickly on a narrowly 

Well that's confrontational...(and hand-wavy imho)

> *whether* to add the KB we build to PostgreSQL.org here, but not how to 

Let me put it this way, I have an interest in discussing how the kb will
be integrated into the main websites, but not much interest in
discussing how exactly its coded up. That said, it sounds like what you
need to know first is how it will be integrated into the site, and that
discussion should probably happen here first *before* you go about
coding something up and have yourselves painted into a corner. 
 
> the present participants weren't there for that discussion.

They can't read the archives? You can't bullet-point it for them?

> meets our requirements, I don't know, since the requirements aren't yet 

Which is why I am confused. Should we discuss the requirements here
*first*, and then those interested in coding them up can join the
project and discuss the details there? To do otherwise would seem to add
an a priori condition that we're going to use geviks kb project as our
solution before we even have the requirements. 

(Robert prepares to resign himself to joining yet another mailing list,
since it looks like this decision has already been made)

Robert Treat

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 12:53:31 -0800

Robert,

> Well that's confrontational...

Well, personally I would have thought it would be obvious why we wouldn't 
want corporate supporters participating on this list, but you demanded to 
know.

> coding something up and have yourselves painted into a corner.

Actually, I see it as:
1) Functionality Requirements (other list)
2) Requirments Related to Integration (this list)

> They can't read the archives? You can't bullet-point it for them?

To be more clear: Techdocs is not a Knowledge Base.  The previous tread 
discussed re-implementing Techdocs, not a creating a KB,  therefore it is 
not applicable except in a few details where there's overlap.

> project and discuss the details there?

Integration requirements, yes.  Functional requirements, no.  The 
functional requirements should be defined by the people who are actually 
going to develop and/or fund the software.

> To do otherwise would seem to add 

Per my previous e-mail, that's undecided.   Please read it again and stop 
jumping to conclusions. 

-- 
--Josh

Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 12:57:03 -0800

> Well that's confrontational...(and hand-wavy imho)

But in reality, true. Some of the people on the list for the KB probably
would flat out not participate because of some of the more colorful ways
we in the OSS community tend to communicate.

This is an important project and has some corporate level sponsors that
are as integrated as say CMD into the community. We should respect the
way they communicate as well.

> coding something up and have yourselves painted into a corner. 

My suggestion to the other mailing list was to define scope and then
when we had done so bring it to the WWW list for inclusion/comments
etc...

> They can't read the archives? You can't bullet-point it for them?

Robert, think ties. Ties don't read archives, nor is it Josh's
responsibility to bullet-point it for them.

> project and discuss the details there?

Well honestly I don't think so. The KB at least at this point has
requirements that are going to be set forth in a major way by the
corporate sponsors. I don't think people on the WWW list want to
particpate in that.

I can see however, once those requirements are set; discussion from WWW
on snags, pitfalls and what we have to do to get it accepted and
integrated into the main WWW sites.

> since it looks like this decision has already been made)

Think of it this way; it should go away in the end :)

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

-- 
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: PLphp, PLperl, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/

---

From: Robert Treat <[email-masked]>
Date: 02 Dec 2005 16:31:29 -0500

> want corporate supporters participating on this list, but you demanded to 

This is a joke. If you invite all the people on this list to join that
list, you haven't actually prevented the "fragile corporate types" from
interacting with the "grotty techno-luddites" which claim to be so
important. 

As a side note, I'm more than happy to have anyone join this list, it's
one of the reasons I lobbied so hard for us to open it up so many moons
ago. 

> going to develop and/or fund the software.

I see where I went wrong, I thought integrating it into the main website
infrastructure was a functional requirement. 
 
> Per my previous e-mail, that's undecided.   Please read it again and stop 

Clearly I should have understood that if you are leading a discussion
with developers and nebulous sponsors to implement a large website of
postgresql related materials on a third party projects mailing list that
that would be an indication of your openness to everyones ideas on a
software implementation for the postgresql community and would in no way
color the final decisions on the direction things should take. I
apologize for my confusion. 

Robert Treat

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 13:41:26 -0800

Robert,

> interacting with the "grotty techno-luddites" which claim to be so

Gee, and you wondered why I thought we need a seperate mailing list?  This 
sort of response is *exactly* why.

-- 
--Josh

Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

---

From: Robert Treat <[email-masked]>
Date: 02 Dec 2005 16:55:35 -0500

> sort of response is *exactly* why.

Didn't realize you were so sensitive Josh :-)

Does this mean I can't join all you hipsters on that other list now?

Robert Treat

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 14:01:23 -0800

Robert,

More seriously, there's a 3rd reason: there are several people involved 
with the KB who have no interest in general WWW activity.

-- 
--Josh

Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 14:02:38 -0800

Robert,

> Does this mean I can't join all you hipsters on that other list now?

That's "you squares".  ;-)

-- 
--Josh

Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco