Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] We need an Advocacy wiki

From: "Dave Page" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:13:34 +0100

> ------- Original Message -------
> From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
> To: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
> Sent: 04/08/07, 17:56:32
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [pgsql-www] We need an Advocacy wiki
> 
> Yes, in fact it is. It is a complete pain in the butt in comparison to
> editing a wiki. If I want a page added to the .Org I have to:
> 
> A. Understand CVS
> B. Understand HTML
> C. Understand patch

Rubbish. You send the text to -www. 

Using a wiki for a public website looks completely unprofessional and gives the impression of a small organisation without the resources to do things properly. 

Implemented  in the manner being suggested leaves us with little editorial control over what is published. I'm not so much concerned with deliberate vandalism but with ensuring all published content is factually correct, non-libellous, and consistent with the projects aims and past decisions on what we should or shouldn't publish.

Regards, Dave

---

From: Lukas Kahwe Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 19:54:02 +0200

> Using a wiki for a public website looks completely unprofessional and gives the impression of a small organisation without the resources to do things properly. 

Honestly I dont think that our target audience cares much. What I do 
feel is important is that we have some kind of editorial process to 
ensure that there is no content on there, that the community at large 
does not endorse or that is not labeled properly. This requires a group 
of people subscribing to the changelog RSS feed and keeping an eye on 
what goes in and warning this list if there is questionable content. It 
also requires regular spring cleaning (I would say once per quarter).

regards,
Lukas

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 20:00:14 +0200

Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
> 
>> Using a wiki for a public website looks completely unprofessional and
>> gives the impression of a small organisation without the resources to
>> do things properly. 
> 

Apparently we define our target audience a lot differently ;-) What
group does not notice an unprofessional web presence these days?

> also requires regular spring cleaning (I would say once per quarter).

That method leaves it very possible for incorrect data to be up on the
main site for three months, which is IMHO unacceptable. I can accept
that for a community collaboration site (like the current wiki), but not
for the main web presence. "Moderation" has to happen before the fact
there. (that's a principle completely unrelated to if a wiki is used or
not - I assume there are wikis that can deal with that workflow as well)

/Magnus

---

From: Lukas Kahwe Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 20:04:34 +0200

> group does not notice an unprofessional web presence these days?

Well my idea if an average PostgreSQL user is not one who would be 
turned off by the idea of a wiki in general. I also do not think that a 
wiki is unprofessional by definition.

> not - I assume there are wikis that can deal with that workflow as well)

Oh maybe I missed something here, but I did not realize that we are 
discussing replacing the main site with a wiki. I just think that the 
wiki is perfect when we want to involve a broad audience in the creation 
of the text (which may very well then we moved to techdoc or the 
documentation later on) or when its just for a quick one shot with a 
life time if a few weeks (months tops).

regards,
Lukas

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 14:14:05 -0700

> Rubbish. You send the text to -www. 

Really? O.k. I need a page where I and Berkus can dynamically manage
sponsors. Where do I send the requirements to get that done?

> Using a wiki for a public website looks completely unprofessional and gives the impression of a small organisation without the resources to do things properly. 

Cough.. hardly. The tool is not what makes it unprofessional, it is the
presentation.

> Implemented  in the manner being suggested leaves us with little editorial control over what is published. I'm not so much concerned with deliberate vandalism but with ensuring all published conten…

I *repeat* I am not suggesting we change our web infrastructure, only
that the attitudes around it change a bit.

Joshua D. Drake

> Regards, Dave

- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
             http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

---

From: Robert Treat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:18:15 -0400

> sponsors. Where do I send the requirements to get that done?

He said send the text of the page, you start talking about dynamic management 
and requirements... you're letting your pointy-hair colors show! :-D 

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

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:59:17 -0700

> and requirements... you're letting your pointy-hair colors show! :-D 

Shhhhh ;).

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --