Subject: Approval process for news/events/training is broken

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:11:25 -0700

WWW folks,

I've just noticed again today that the way we approve news, events, and 
training for the front page is seriously broken.  Currently, if only 
*one* person with approval rights thinks that something is OK, it gets 
approved immediately.

This means that screw-ups like this morning happen repeatedly.  Namely, 
EDB posted a link-only announcement, which we've discussed before as not 
being acceptable for PostgreSQL.  I pinged Robert and asked him not to 
approve it, and phoned EDB's PR agent, and she was giving me new content 
... when someone else decided to approve it.

We need the news/events system to change in two ways:

1) There needs to be a way for admins to flag an item as "don't approve, 
there's a problem" so that if one person knows of a reason to hold, 
someone coming online later won't approve due to being clueless.

2) approvers should wait at least a couple of hours before approving things.

3) We need a written policy of what is acceptable for 
news/events/training and what isn't.

I can do (3) but (1) and (2) are up to the other "slaves".

--Josh Berkus

---

From: Devrim GÜNDÜZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:26:55 -0700

Hi,

On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 11:11 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> 1) There needs to be a way for admins to flag an item as "don't
> approve,  there's a problem" so that if one person knows of a reason
> to hold, someone coming online later won't approve due to being
> clueless.

Yeah, we should simply delete the items which includes "DO NOT
APPROVE ... WAITING FOR MORE TEXT.".

I cannot understand why someone would post such an item... Wait until
the text comes, and then submit it!
-- 
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:31:25 -0700

> the text comes, and then submit it!

I just added that a few minutes ago.  BTW, I did get corrections from 
Christian, so will be replacing/updating the item after a sufficient 
interval has passed since the 8.3 beta release.

--Josh

---

From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:39:43 +0200

> ... when someone else decided to approve it.

well that particular news item was like 10 days old as far as I can see ...

> someone coming online later won't approve due to being clueless.

that seems doable though

> 2) approvers should wait at least a couple of hours before approving

well ... see above

> news/events/training and what isn't.

sounds like a good thing - maybe simply have it as some sort of
checklist in the interface to check against ?

Stefan

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:42:31 -0700

> checklist in the interface to check against ?

Would a simple solution be, that at least two people have to approve it?

> 
> 
> Stefan
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
> 

- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
			UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:42:33 -0700

Stefan,

>> 2) approvers should wait at least a couple of hours before approving

Yeah, I misread the news item.

> checklist in the interface to check against ?

Yeah.  The problem is that we discuss policies on what is/isn't 
acceptable, and then later on one or another approver says "I don't 
remember discussing that".  So it needs to be somewhere easy-to-refer.

--Josh

---

From: Devrim GÜNDÜZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:54:28 -0700

Hi,

> Would a simple solution be, that at least two people have to approve

I don't think so. That will delay all of the news approvals, I'm sure.

Regards,

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:58:09 -0700

> I don't think so. That will delay all of the news approvals, I'm sure.

When there are pending news items... is anyone notified?

- --

---

From: Devrim GÜNDÜZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 12:01:34 -0700

Hi,

> When there are pending news items... is anyone notified? 

Yes, when a new item is submitted, the slaves get an e-mail.

Regards,

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 22:39:10 +0200

> *one* person with approval rights thinks that something is OK, it gets

I think that was me this time (I honestly don't recall 100%, but it's
quite possible). Sorry about that.

> ... when someone else decided to approve it.

Why on earth didn't you email either -www or -slaves about it? It should
be pretty darn obvious that talking to Robert only means talking to
Robert, and not talking to the other people, no?

> someone coming online later won't approve due to being clueless.

Ok. That should be fairly easy. How about a text field with "admins
comment", so you can tell people *why*, what's being done, and who's
doing it?

> 2) approvers should wait at least a couple of hours before approving

As has previously been stated, it had waited for days.

> I can do (3) but (1) and (2) are up to the other "slaves".

*please* do. I've been asking for this since the first day I started
doing news approvals. While at it, please make one for events as well,
as they're very similar.

We really should have one for doc comments, quotes etc as well, but
those two are the most important ones.

I'll be quite happy to stay away from approving news and/or events until
such a document exists. I would suggest others do as well.

//Magnus

---

From: Robert Treat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:43:57 -0400

> quite possible). Sorry about that.

Just so that everyone knows, the email notice on approval is broken.  We still 
have a crud audit trail available via apache logs,  but this ought to be 
fixed.

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

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 11:04:18 -0400

> someone coming online later won't approve due to being clueless.

This seems ok-ish, except that the example in this case is not one
where it ought to come into play -- this was just a violation of
policy, no?
 
> 2) approvers should wait at least a couple of hours before approving things.

Why?  If the idea is that some approvers are more accurate or capable
or whatever, then only those approvers ought to be approving, no? 
This kind of "wait a while" policy does nothing to increase accuracy,
and merely slows things down.
 
> news/events/training and what isn't.

This makes sense.  

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | [email-masked]
Unfortunately reformatting the Internet is a little more painful 
than reformatting your hard drive when it gets out of whack.
		--Scott Morris

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:01:50 -0700

All,

> > news/events/training and what isn't.

OK, here's a draft:

http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php/NewsEventsApproval

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:33:47 +0100

> http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php/NewsEventsApproval

Looks very good to me.

/D

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 14:54:44 -0700

> > http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php/NewsEventsApproval

No objections or modifications?  Can we make the document canonical and link 
the criteria from the Submit page, then?

If we're going to restrict what we accept, we should let submitters know the 
rules.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:51:38 +0100

> the criteria from the Submit page, then?

No, I'm fine with it. We should format it up as part of the main site
rather than linking to the wiki.

> If we're going to restrict what we accept, we should let submitters know the 

Yep.

/D

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:19:27 +0200

> rather than linking to the wiki.

One clearification - does "Postgresql family news" include all pgfoundry
projects, or just "major" ones? If second, how do we define which are
major?

Also, looking back at the news just added today, is "EnterpriseDB Postgres"
considered a "postgresql family product" or a commercial one? Maybe a
guidance bullet on "downstream distributions"?

As for events, I'm not sure I agree with the very last point, about
"conferences with little pg content". I think that depends a lot - in some
areas, having a single postgresql session *is* a major event. It no longer
is in the US for example, but in a lot of other places it is.

Training events - should we require that they include information about the
cost to attend?

(and +42 on making it a real webpage, since we need something that's very
stable if we point our visitors to it)

> > If we're going to restrict what we accept, we should let submitters know the 

Absolutely

//Magnus

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:38:11 +0100

> projects, or just "major" ones? If second, how do we define which are

It should be all - after all, they have a fairly rigourous approval
process to get on pgFoundry in the first place.

> guidance bullet on "downstream distributions"?

It's certainly not commercial, but yes that does seem worth clarifying.

> is in the US for example, but in a lot of other places it is.

It's a bit subjective. I'd be happy with any level of content from a
single session up, as long as it includes details so people don't spend
serious money getting somewhere only to find just a single session.

> Training events - should we require that they include information about the

Sounds reasonable.

/D

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:31:31 -0700

> It's certainly not commercial, but yes that does seem worth clarifying.

It depends on what you are meaning by "commercial". This is a common 
problem amongst FOSS people. FOSS can be commercial. I would actually 
argue that EnterpriseDB Postgres *is* commercial as it is backed and 
supported by a *commercial* Enterprise.

The real question is, "is it proprietary". If it is even partially 
closed source then it really doesn't belong in the "postgresql family 
product" unless we also include MPP and Replicator.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>> is in the US for example, but in a lot of other places it is.

I think as long as the postgresql content is published as part of their 
material then it should be fine.

> serious money getting somewhere only to find just a single session.

+1

>> Training events - should we require that they include information about the

+1

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

> TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
> 
>                 http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
>

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:44:40 -0700

Dave,

> It's certainly not commercial, but yes that does seem worth clarifying.

Actually, I'd argue that it's commercial.  That was what I had in mind 
when I drafted the rules.  For one thing, like the tools SW makers, EDB 
tends to bury us under press releases and need reigning in, in a way 
that OSS projects generally don't.

> serious money getting somewhere only to find just a single session.

Well, we need to draw some line for PostgreSQL content.  A 200-session 
conference with one session which covers using PHP with PostgreSQL 
alongside MySQL and DB2 really shouldn't go on the site.  Maybe we 
should just re-write that as "significant PostgreSQL content" and leave 
it up to WWW what "significant" is?

>> Training events - should we require that they include information about the

Sure.  Mind you, they usually do.   We haven't had a problem with 
trainers not providing enough content, just posting too frequently.

BTW, have we fixed the training events so that they stop displaying once 
they start?

--Josh

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:56:19 +0100

> product" unless we also include MPP and Replicator.

You know what I mean :-). And all of EDB-Postgres is open source,
including the funky little MySQL migrator tool in the latest builds.

/D

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:58:49 +0100

> that OSS projects generally don't.

I couldn't possibly comment on the work of our marketing dept :-)

> it up to WWW what "significant" is?

Might be easiest.

> BTW, have we fixed the training events so that they stop displaying once

I haven't but then I've been kinda busy with releases. Dunno if anyone
else did.

/D

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:28:19 -0400

> it up to WWW what "significant" is?

I like that answer.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | [email-masked]
"The year's penultimate month" is not in truth a good way of saying
November.
		--H.W. Fowler

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:51:30 +0200

> that OSS projects generally don't.

I agree, but should our policy be worded in respect of that one case?
Maybe find a better way under a separate bullet point for such a product?

> it up to WWW what "significant" is?

I think a dedicated PostgreSQL talk is most of the time significant.
Leaving it up to www would probably work fine.

> trainers not providing enough content, just posting too frequently.

I know, but if we have a policy, it should be complete :) It's not just
for the situation we have now, it's also for the situation we'll ahve
tomorrow.

//Magnus

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:56:00 -0700

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:56:19 +0100
Dave Page <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > problem amongst FOSS people. FOSS can be commercial. I would
> > actually argue that EnterpriseDB Postgres *is* commercial as it is
> > backed and supported by a *commercial* Enterprise.
> > 
> > closed source then it really doesn't belong in the "postgresql
> > family product" unless we also include MPP and Replicator.
> 

Yes I know what you mean :) but others may not, so I am trying to be
specific.

Joshua D. Drake

--

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:20:36 -0400 (EDT)

> including the funky little MySQL migrator tool in the latest builds.

Uh, doesn't the installer use a commercial product that isn't open
source?  Does requiring non-open source tools to build something make it
non-open source?  Postgres requires a C compiler that can be open or
closed source so I don't know if that helps clarify things.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <[email-masked]>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:29:10 -0700

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:20:36 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]> wrote:

> source?  Does requiring non-open source tools to build something make
> it non-open source?  Postgres requires a C compiler that can be open
> or closed source so I don't know if that helps clarify things.

Well I think I C compiler is a little different.

If the Installer is closed source, that is part of the package and I
would consider that a show stopper, because I need a closed source
package to install the software...

Joshua D. Drake

--

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:45:40 -0700

Folks,

> closed source so I don't know if that helps clarify things.

I don't think any of this is relevant for the News page.  The question 
is, will the person sending me the press release be a paid PR person, or 
an OSS developer?  We treat the two differently because they're going to 
send us different sorts of news at different intervals.

For example, I would treat EDB-Postgres as "commercial" because they 
send us formal press releases every 3 weeks, which often need 
significant re-writing to target our developers.  On the other hand, if 
we get anything from OpenRPT it's just a release announcement, maybe 
once a year, so we can treat them like an "PostgreSQL Family" OSS project.

So it's not commercial vs. open source *product*, it's commercial vs. 
open source *news*.

--Josh Berkus

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:21:08 +0100

Bruce Momjian wrote:

> source?  

Yes, but then so does pgInstaller.

> Does requiring non-open source tools to build something make it

No. The licence is on the code, not the toolchain used to build it.
Otherwise you could argue that nothing could be open source on Windows.
Or that pgAdmin I (GPL) or pgAdmin II (Artistic) or psqlODBC (LGPL) are
closed source.

/D