Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D47419F9588 for ; Sun, 4 Nov 2007 10:14:26 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21452-08 for ; Sun, 4 Nov 2007 10:13:59 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from smtp138.iad.emailsrvr.com (smtp138.iad.emailsrvr.com [207.97.245.138]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DB8C9F95C2 for ; Sun, 4 Nov 2007 10:14:16 -0400 (AST) Received: from relay3.r3.iad.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay3.r3.iad.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 6F2DF44C04C; Sun, 4 Nov 2007 09:14:15 -0500 (EST) Received: by relay3.r3.iad.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: chander-AT-otg-nc.com) with ESMTP id 19B4044C04A; Sun, 4 Nov 2007 09:14:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <472DD335.4000109@otg-nc.com> Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:12:05 -0500 From: Chander Ganesan User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Lane CC: Kevin Hunter , "Joshua D. Drake" , Dave Page , Postgres WWW List , Peter Eisentraut Subject: Re: Training events policy ... first test case References: <200711031703310000@114527600> <20071103142105.2d29bc1b@scratch> <472D02A3.1070404@postgresql.org> <20071103205146.63a6997c@scratch> <472D505C.8010009@earlham.edu> <5652.1194152441@sss.pgh.pa.us> <472D5EF4.7020900@otg-nc.com> <6444.1194156934@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <6444.1194156934@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060504080807030609090102" X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200711/93 X-Sequence-Number: 12871 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060504080807030609090102 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tom Lane wrote: > Chander Ganesan writes: > >> I'm still opposed to event spam..which everyone seems to conveniently >> ignore when I bring it up. :-( . >> > > Oh, we hear you, we're just not sure what to do about it ... > > >> How about trying to limit the number of events that a company can have >> on the list at a time? Say a maximum of 5 events listed at a time? >> That's fairly even handed, and would force folks to post courses that >> they would consider would have some likelihood of running? >> > > I don't much like this one, because it would skew the playing field in > favor of smaller companies. If there were someone out there able to > field 100 events, but they could only advertise 5, how is that good for > either them or the potential attendees? > First off, I apologize..I didn't see this before I sent out my last message (where I said I felt like I was being ignored..). > Conversely, I think your ultimate concern is with companies that can > really only field 5 events but advertise 100 to see what will happen :-( > That's the gist of it, but I don't see how you can differentiate between the two and be "fair". I think that if the time came where someone said "this is too restrictive, I can field lots of events and want to" then this could be revisited. At present, I don't think there is anyone that can do so. I also don't think the training market for PG events is big enough to support such a thing anyways.. Also, keep in mind that this isn't the only venue for advertising events. Lots of other venues exist... This is just one of them... Besides, someone would be able to list their 5 upcoming courses and as soon as one drops off add another to the end. If you consider admin courses alone that's listing a calendar 5 months in advance (potentially). > Maybe we should try to discourage that sort of gamesmanship by instead > allowing/supporting ad campaigns on the order of "call us, we'll bring > our training to you", or "vote here for course X offered in city Y at > time Z". > I think that might be worse than the situation we have now.. chander > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > -- Chander Ganesan Open Technology Group, Inc. One Copley Parkway, Suite 210 Morrisville, NC 27560 Phone: 877-258-8987/919-463-0999 http://www.otg-nc.com --------------060504080807030609090102 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tom Lane wrote: 
Chander Ganesan <chander@otg-nc.com> writes:
  
I'm still opposed to event spam..which everyone seems to conveniently 
ignore when I bring it up. :-( .
    

Oh, we hear you, we're just not sure what to do about it ...

  
How about trying to limit the number of events that a company can have 
on the list at a time?  Say a maximum of 5 events listed at a time?  
That's fairly even handed, and would force folks to post courses that 
they would consider would have some likelihood of running?
    

I don't much like this one, because it would skew the playing field in
favor of smaller companies.  If there were someone out there able to
field 100 events, but they could only advertise 5, how is that good for
either them or the potential attendees?
First off, I apologize..I didn't see this before I sent out my last message (where I said I felt like I was being ignored..).
Conversely, I think your ultimate concern is with companies that can
really only field 5 events but advertise 100 to see what will happen :-(
That's the gist of it, but I don't see how you can differentiate between the two and be "fair". 

I think that if the time came where someone said "this is too restrictive, I can field lots of events and want to" then this could be revisited.  At present, I don't think there is anyone that can do so.  I also don't think the training market for PG events is big enough to support such a thing anyways..  Also, keep in mind that this isn't the only venue for advertising events.  Lots of other venues exist...  This is just one of them...

Besides, someone would be able to list their 5 upcoming courses and as soon as one drops off add another to the end.  If you consider admin courses alone that's listing a calendar 5 months in advance (potentially).
Maybe we should try to discourage that sort of gamesmanship by instead
allowing/supporting ad campaigns on the order of "call us, we'll bring
our training to you", or "vote here for course X offered in city Y at
time Z".
I think that might be worse than the situation we have now.. 

chander


			regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
  


-- 
Chander Ganesan
Open Technology Group, Inc.
One Copley Parkway, Suite 210
Morrisville, NC  27560
Phone: 877-258-8987/919-463-0999
http://www.otg-nc.com
--------------060504080807030609090102--