Message-ID: <4644BECC.20908@postgresql.org>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 20:06:52 +0100
From: Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Macintosh/20070326)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Chander Ganesan <chander@otg-nc.com>
CC: PostgreSQL www <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Event Spam..???
References: <46449018.9070202@otg-nc.com> <4644A423.6030406@postgresql.org>
	<4644AFDC.60803@otg-nc.com>
In-Reply-To: <4644AFDC.60803@otg-nc.com>
OpenPGP: url=http://www.pgadmin.org/pgp/davepage.pgp
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Chander Ganesan wrote:
> I see your point.  However, perhaps there is some other mechanism or
> restriction that can be put in place to limit the likelihood of this
> (one course of one type per month, a limitation on annual courses
> listed, or a "per listing" fee charged to not-for-free companies)?  Such
> restrictions would at least limit abuse to some extent..  Or perhaps
> limiting listed courses to states where companies are registered as
> corporations...   Such information is freely available, and it could be
> required that companies provide a link to their articles of
> incorporation in the states where they provide training - easy to check
> without undue work on those that filter events... 

Limiting the number of listings is not in our interests - we want to
show how much PostgreSQL is being used. Perhaps more importantly, how
*widely*. We'd want to list courses running in every state, even if they
were all the same company.

Charging would almost certainly cause us problems given our financial
status. I suspect we could 'solicit donations', but that would obviously
not have the desired effect.

Limiting to the states in which companies are registered is a nonsense
as well - what about a company in Japan? How do we check them? Or what
about EnterpriseDB UK Ltd for example who cover the whole EMEA region -
would they (== we in case you didn't realise I work for them) be
restricted to listing courses in England because that's where we're
registered?

Don't misunderstand - I'm not trying to dodge the issue. I just don't
think there's a straightforward solution :-(

> If others (ourselves included) are forced to take the same action to be
> competitive then it results in a reduction in the usefulness of the
> tool.  One could argue that removing it entirely to prevent abuse would
> be less disruptive than having PG related companies flounder due to the
> actions of a few "bad citizens".

Let's remember that there are no proven 'bad citizens'. Unless that
should change, for you to 'take the same action' would mean scheduling
more legitimate courses - which I'd welcome :-)

Regards, Dave.