Message-ID: <46A706BC.9040702@postgresql.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:15:56 +0100
From: Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (Windows/20070716)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
CC: decibel@decibel.org, pgsql-www@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Advocacy wiki
References: <20070725054838.71190DCC143@svr2.hagander.net>
	<46A700A3.40903@postgresql.org>
	<20070725081046.GA5612@svr2.hagander.net>
In-Reply-To: <20070725081046.GA5612@svr2.hagander.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 08:49:55AM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>>> Trying to put together my "What's New in 8.3" lightning talk, I'm  
>>>> surprised at the complete lack of advocacy resources. What little I  
>>>> can find is spread all over the place.
>>>>
>>>> In order to make life easier for others who are creating PostgreSQL  
>>>> presentations by providing links/copies of past presentations, as  
>>>> well as useful images, etc. ISTM the best way to do this is with a wiki.
>>>>
>>>> So, should I setup some pages on the developer wiki for this, or  
>>>> should we have a separate advocacy wiki? I'm leaning towards a  
>>>> separate one so that anyone can add resources...
>>>
>>> I'm not going to comment on the general need. but if we're going to do 
>>> that then please don't use the dev one, even though i see others already 
>>> use it for such stuff. we absolutely do not want even more stuff loading 
>>> up that machine at the moment. It's bad enough having the dev wiki where 
>>> it is.
>> It wasn't long ago that we 'rebranded' the developer wiki as a project 
>> wiki specifically to allow Josh B. To use if for advocacy purposes - in 
>> fact, the opening para now reads:
>>
>> "Please note that this is a PostgreSQL developer resource for use by 
>> people hacking the PostgreSQL source code or working on other areas of 
>> the project such as advocacy or the websites."
>>
>> I forget which list it was discussed on, but I'm pretty sure even you 
>> thought it was the best idea.
> 
> Actually, at the time we were discussing either temporary or "just for
> -advocacy internals". Maybe that's what's being referred to at this time,
> in which case I'm fine with it. But I read this as information that's for
> end-users as well, and we specifically said we don't want that on the wiki.
> (It was for some reason discussed on -advocacy instead of -www :P)

No, stuff for end users was specifically excluded from the wiki from the 
outset - and that should remain the case. We don't want 'unofficial' 
docs springing up all over the place - that's what techdocs is for.

/D