Received: from localhost (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D33CF9FBB6B for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2007 16:18:56 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21806-03 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2007 16:18:47 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from developer.pgadmin.org (developer.pgadmin.org [63.246.23.140]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4D4F9FBB50 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2007 16:18:47 -0300 (ADT) Received: from snake.local ([89.240.63.124]) (authenticated bits=0) by developer.pgadmin.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l78JIjcd025375 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 8 Aug 2007 20:18:47 +0100 Message-ID: <46BA170E.9060709@postgresql.org> Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 20:18:38 +0100 From: Dave Page User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joshua D. Drake" CC: David Fetter , Mike Ellsworth , pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org Subject: Re: EnterpriseDB Postgres References: <200708081736.26564.peter_e@gmx.net> <51494DB187D98F4C88DBEBF1F5F6D423022518CA@edb06.mail01.enterprisedb.com> <200708081836.44990.peter_e@gmx.net> <46B9FA88.8000809@commandprompt.com> <219951fd0708081116v5c761346yc68d72b04ae9ee1d@mail.gmail.com> <46BA0C2F.3030305@postgresql.org> <20070808185920.GA7134@fetter.org> <46BA14F3.604@commandprompt.com> In-Reply-To: <46BA14F3.604@commandprompt.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.3 OpenPGP: url=http://www.pgadmin.org/pgp/davepage.pgp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200708/171 X-Sequence-Number: 11741 Joshua D. Drake wrote: > David Fetter wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 07:32:15PM +0100, Dave Page wrote: >>> Mike Ellsworth wrote: > >> Dave, > >> I know you mean well, but in this case, you created, at best, the >> appearance of a conflict of interest. Next time, please ask somebody >> not employed at EnterpriseDB to review such pieces. > > Actually this is probably a good idea in general. It isn't a question of > inappropriateness but the appearance of thus by *any* member. We have > quite a few prominent members employed by several prominent postgresql > companies. I don't necessarily disagree, and in fact did refuse to post it and approve it myself (hence why it came from Peter Yarrow). However, as I know I subjected it to the same rules as we apply to all articles, I didn't see a problem approving it myself. I've had to deal with these conflicts of interest for years on the website - for example, dealing with news relating to other admin tools, especially those from one particular company who like to try to flood us with postings from time to time. If people want to make 'no self approval of your or your companies items' a new moderation rule, I have no problem with that. Regards, Dave.