Received: from magus.postgresql.org (magus.postgresql.org [87.238.57.229]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EFEE15B9A79 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:16:24 -0300 (ADT) Received: from smtp.01.com ([199.36.142.181]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SKC0o-0002Cq-9F for pgsql-www@postgresql.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:16:23 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1514F59F7 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:16:05 -0500 (CDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp-out-2.01.com Received: from smtp.01.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp-out-2.01.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hv0X+wsUrf0G for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:16:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28C294F5EEC for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:16:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: from Sidney-Stratton.local (70-36-143-92.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [70.36.143.92]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DFEF94F59F7 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:16:04 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <4F8DA554.8010508@agliodbs.com> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:16:04 -0700 From: Josh Berkus Organization: PostgreSQL Experts Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-www@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Planet posting policy References: <96e5156e36277877d18484a5148ad516@biglumber.com> <4F8CF64C.5050403@2ndQuadrant.com> In-Reply-To: <4F8CF64C.5050403@2ndQuadrant.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Archive-Number: 201204/25 X-Sequence-Number: 20599 On 4/16/12 9:49 PM, Greg Smith wrote: > These examples are further over the line here than the one Dave > suggested from his own blog. They're a useful data point though just > for that reason. Any rewritten policy that makes these suddenly Planet > material has likely gone too far. While surely there's somebody who > thinks a Planet PostgreSQL that also mixes in regular Greenplum features > is a great idea, I'd put my bet on that being a poor choice. I had a discussion about this with other OSS projects while at PyCon this year (mostly due to the Planet Mozilla firestorm, but that's another story). Several OSS projects have a "main" and a "universe" feeds, with the "main" being strictly limited to stuff about the project, and "universe" being anything someone with any approved blog wants to post. This has worked well for the organizations who implemented it. Other groups have strict planets ( like ours ), and still others (Gnome, Mozilla, etc.) have very liberal feeds where anyone who is a project developer can post whatever they want (and do). As an example, I want to read about 2Q's stuff on Greenplum. I can understand, though, that a lot of Postgres users wouldn't want to. If we had a "universe" feed, I'd both subscribe to it and post to it. For another example, my "Booze and Brogrammers" post really belonged on a "universe" instead of "main", but I was faced with a binary choice and put it on Planet. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com