Subject: Training approval policy on pg.org

From: damien clochard <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:27:13 +0100

Hi folks,

Thom Brown warned me today that a company cannot submit more than 4
training events per quarter.

http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/NewsEventsApproval#Training_Events

I wasn't aware of that limit and I'm quite surprise. I can't see what's
the reason behind it. Dalibo is facing a huge growth of the PostgreSQL
training demand in France and we trying to answer that with 40+
trainings shceduled in 2013. I guess the same kind of growth is
happening elsewhere to other companies.

Overall it's a "good thing". I think that the more training events are
listed on postgresql.org, the better it is for our community.

It shows that the community is alive. It shows that user have the choice.

Is it possible to remove that limit or at least to increase it to a
level that matches the reality of the PostgreSQL Training market. Like
15 or 20 per quarter ?

--
damien

-- 
Sent via pgsql-www mailing list ([email-masked])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-www

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 09:27:56 -0800

> happening elsewhere to other companies.

It is likely because we have in the past had lots of people advertise 
training in bulk and then end up canceling most of them.

JD

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC
@cmdpromptinc - 509-416-6579

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 09:45:59 -0800

> training in bulk and then end up canceling most of them.

We did.  The policy was specifically to address a couple of companies
who were listing a training event every week, in order to upstage other
training companies.

I'll also add that the RSS-feed structure of the events feed doesn't
really lend itself to listing 10-20 training events from various
companies per month.  They'll completely swamp the non-training events.
 If it's our goal to list every legit training event from any company,
then I think we need a different mechanism for listing training events.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 19:14:03 +0100

> who were listing a training event every week, in order to upstage other

Yes.

An honest question to Damien though - do you actually expect to *run*
all these training sessions, or are you basicaly doing the same thing
- settings up lots of options and then plan to run the most popular
ones?

> then I think we need a different mechanism for listing training events.

Given that we don't include training events in the RSS feed, I doubt
that's a problem in reality :P

And we already changed the view on the frontpage for that reason.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

---

From: damien clochard <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 21:38:21 +0100

> - settings up lots of options and then plan to run the most popular

Short answer is "Yes I expect to run most of these training sessions".

Here's why :

First of all, every session I've submitted is "real" in the sense that
you can find it on our website (http://www.dalibo.com/formations) and on
our resellers catalogs... We don't invent fake trainings just for fun.
To be honest, we don't really care about other training companies
because we're operating on a specific market (French-speaking Europe)
where we face little competition. So basically we're not submitting
trainings on pg.org to upstage anyone, we just want to let people know
what we are doing.

About training cancellation : last year we planned approx. 30 public
sessions and actually run approx. 20 sessions. That's a 33% cancellation
rate, which is not so bad for training company in fact. For 2013, we've
made a lot of strategic changes to lower that rate and we're planning to
have a 20% cancellation rate. (I can't be more specific about what we
did to achieve that sorry)

In the meantime, we're facing an average growth of 30% on the Postgres
training market in France every year since 2009 and I don't see that
changing in 2013. Once again I can't post more details on this list.

That alone makes me think that we will run 33 sessions among the 42 we
have planned.

That being said, I don't see why submitting "unlikely sessions" should
be a problem at all. For instance, we trying new things this year such
as some PostGIS trainings (with Oslandia) and a couple sessions in
Brussels (with Open DB Team). I can't really say if this is gonna work
or fail, because it's new for us... It's a test and it's exactly in
cases like this that we need to publish the sessions on pg.org. It's a
basic chicken-egg situation : you need a minimum number of attendees to
run a training session. Noboby will register if you don't plan at least
a few sessions. When you try new trainings, you have a high cancellation
rate.

I understand there might have been a problem before with a couple of
trolls posting too many unlikely sessions... But this is not what we are
doing here. We don't believe in the Google pagerank religion. We suck at
SEO. We don't need to upstage anyone.

We just want to let people know what we plan to do. If that's not
possible on postgresql.org, well nevermind. We'll find something else to
do with our time :-)

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 21:48:23 +0100

> Short answer is "Yes I expect to run most of these training sessions".

That's pretty cool, actually.

> our resellers catalogs... We don't invent fake trainings just for fun.

Just to be clear. I *never* meant to indicate that you would be
inventing fake trainings in order to make things "look better" or
anything. If it came across as that, I apologize.

> a few sessions. When you try new trainings, you have a high cancellation

I agree it's not necessarily a  bad thing, but the important point
with it is that we treat everybody equally.

> possible on postgresql.org, well nevermind. We'll find something else to

Nah, I think we need a policy that actually helps people (both
providers and consumers), without being abuse:able. Not entirely sure
what it is. Maybe we can just increase the numbers now and it won't be
a problem, because the market has matured.

---

From: "Jonathan S. Katz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:02:35 -0500

> a problem, because the market has matured.

Earlier in the thread, Damien suggested allowing 15-20 / quarter.  Why not start at 10 /quarter and see what happens?

Jonathan

---

From: Gabriele Bartolini <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:03:10 +0100

Hi everyone,

Il 10/01/13 21:38, damien clochard ha scritto:
> So basically we're not submitting trainings on pg.org to upstage 
> anyone, we just want to let people know what we are doing. 
<snip>

My point of view is that, as things stand currently, this is a false 
problem. Publishing of training events (contrary to what happens with 
conferences/community events) does not harm anyone if the publisher is a 
company that is considered to be reliable. Nobody gets bombed with 
emails or spam, the training events simply sit there, in a separate page.

On one side we might want to limit the number of events, but in any case 
I am sure there will always be people complaining. We could base it on 
meritocracy, for instance using the sponsors page, but I am afraid 
controversies will be even more frequent (as that page is not up to date).

On the other hand though, we cannot do anything but observe the growth 
of Postgres demand - with satisfaction, pride and positive mind. So, I 
stand next to Damien here.

I don't see any particular problem with having a higher number of 
courses allowed in that page, even though I think we should limit that 
(but set it high).

In Italy we are experiencing a similar trend and we currently have a 
week of courses every month. Sure, we can't promise that they won't be 
cancelled, but ... who can? And if we don't publish them, who's going to 
come ever?

I think this is one of the duties of the postgresql.org website. Help 
companies, as well as communities, spread the word of Postgres. And 
training plays a crucial role in this. Postgresql.org is the main point 
of contact for new users and newcomers of Postgres, and they need to 
know who's offering training. It is a service the community delivers to 
them.

So: I'd go for a high value, such as 10 courses a month per organisation.

Cheers,
Gabriele

-- 
  Gabriele Bartolini - 2ndQuadrant Italia
  PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
  [email-masked] | www.2ndQuadrant.it

---

From: Jaime Casanova <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:12:54 -0500

> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/NewsEventsApproval#Training_Events

That seems to low, specially for a Platinum Sponsor.
What about 5 per month that will make 15 per quarter just not all of
them at once.

--
Jaime Casanova         www.2ndQuadrant.com
Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte 24x7 y capacitación
Phone: +593 4 5107566         Cell: +593 987171157

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:54:56 -0800

> emails or spam, the training events simply sit there, in a separate page.

It's not a false problem.  That policy was created in specific response
to a specific problem from a company which (as far as I know) still
exists and will return to abusing our system if we let them.

We probably want a new policy, but it needs to be one which does not
allow casual abuse.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

---

From: Gabriele Bartolini <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:22:10 +0100

> exists and will return to abusing our system if we let them.
What I meant is that the limitation is probably worse than that 
particular abuse. Also, Magnus confirms that after that, the way events 
are shown has been changed.

I'd agree to limit invasive submissions (such as emails and home page 
communications), but frankly I still believe that the current limitation 
is obsolete and probably also damaging.

However, in case you probably missed that part in my email, I came with 
a proposal of 10 courses per month per organisation. A high number, but 
still a upper limit.
> We probably want a new policy, but it needs to be one which does not
In Italy there is a saying: "Fatta la legge, trovato l'inganno" ( every 
law has a loophole). I think we are better off using our time and energy 
in positive activities, and helping healthy, dynamic and active 
companies promote Postgres through training.

Also, who is willing to go and check if an event is really an abuse? How 
would you judge that?

Thank you.

Ciao,
Gabriele

---

From: Gabriele Bartolini <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:26:29 +0100

Hi Jaime,

Il 10/01/13 23:12, Jaime Casanova ha scritto:
> That seems to low, specially for a Platinum Sponsor. What about 5 per 
> month that will make 15 per quarter just not all of them at once. 
I think there is a reason for that, and maybe Damien can confirm it or 
not, as I have done this activity for several time in the past.

When you plan your course schedule, you either do it for a semester or 
even a year. It is a very boring activity to do, so you just try and get 
it done all together at once. :)

Ciao,
Gabriele

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 18:50:07 -0500

> What about 5 per month that will make 15 per quarter just not all of

Platinum Sponsor?  What is that?

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

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 18:20:25 -0800

> Platinum Sponsor?  What is that?

To date, we haven't tied approval polices to sponsor levels.  I wouldn't
be opposed to doing so, but it's not our current policy.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:47:17 -0500

> be opposed to doing so, but it's not our current policy.

Wow, we actually give metal designations for community sponsors:

	http://www.postgresql.org/about/sponsors/

I had no idea.  I also agree that tying things to sponsorship might
cause problems.

---

From: Jaime Casanova <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 01:58:26 -0500

> Wow, we actually give metal designations for community sponsors:
[...]
>
> I also agree that tying things to sponsorship might
> cause problems.
>

mmm... we have done it before...
and no, i don't think that showing some kind of preference for those
showing commitment with the project is bad.

anyway, my suggestion (5 per month, 15 per quarter) wasn't tied to
sponsorship... only my comment, about how low that value is, was

---

From: damien clochard <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:39:07 +0100

> it done all together at once. :)

Yes. We need to schedule our trainings on a yearly basis, because our
resellers need integrate those dates in their own catalogs and websites.
At least this is how things work in France, the French training market
is very specific for many reasons...

And yes pushing the dates to pg.org (and elsewhere) is quite a boring
activity ! So I try to do it all at once. This is also why I asked for a
"clone" button a few week ago ;)

--
damien

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:45:44 +0100

> "clone" button a few week ago ;)

That would indeed be very useful. I'm just waiting for a patch to review ;)

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:20:03 -0800

Folks,

If we're going to allow a much higher volume of training events,
training needs both its own RSS feed and its own admin interface.
Training already outnumbers public events by 4 to 1 and makes our events
RSS feed pretty useless for anyone who's not looking for training.  And
the admin/moderation is a PITA.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 11:06:37 +0100

On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Josh Berkus <[email-masked]> wrote:
> RSS feed pretty useless for anyone who's not looking for training.

I already told you earlier in this thread that training events aren't
*in* the RSS feed. There is nothing to remove.

> And the admin/moderation is a PITA.

The event moderation already has the ability to filter by training
events, though it's not filtered in the default view. And the ability
to do bulk approval, should it be needed.

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:52:37 -0800

> *in* the RSS feed. There is nothing to remove.

Sorry, I missed that!  Too much traffic on this thread.  Thanks.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

---

From: Gabriele Bartolini <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 23:09:01 +0100

> Sorry, I missed that!  Too much traffic on this thread.  Thanks.

So, I am just trying to get to a decision, given that the events queue 
for moderation is quite big.

I confirm my proposal to raise this to 10 per month per organisation. If 
you prefer, we can tie this to sponsor companies only - but that 
requires that the sponsorship page is regularly maintained.

Cheers,
Gabriele

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:30:23 -0800

> requires that the sponsorship page is regularly maintained.

I suggest that a limit of 10 per month is effectively no limit; as a
moderator, there is no way I'm going to count how many training events
were in the last 30 days.  So if we're going to lift the limit entirely,
let's just go ahead and do that.

If we're going to lift the limit, though, I'd like a suggestion on how
we deal with companies like Certfirst in the future.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:32:22 -0800

> we deal with companies like Certfirst in the future.

Oh, and let's just go ahead and approve the pending training events for
the next 4 weeks so that we can discuss this some more without having
time pressure, since I don't think there's an easy answer to the above.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

---

From: Gabriele Bartolini <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 23:35:23 +0100

Il 15/01/13 23:30, Josh Berkus ha scritto:
> were in the last 30 days.
With my inconsistent experience as moderator (I do it when I can), I 
find it already hard to check current limitations, to be honest. And I 
am pretty sure I am not alone with this feeling.

> So if we're going to lift the limit entirely, let's just go ahead and 
> do that. If we're going to lift the limit, though, I'd like a 
> suggestion on how we deal with companies like Certfirst in the future.
The 10 limit per month is actually something that can be used to deal 
with this kind of companies.

As I previously said, if 10 is too much, let's start with 5 courses 
(even though it can be easily surrounded).

Cheers,
Gabriele

---

From: Gabriele Bartolini <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:17:21 +0100

Il 15/01/13 23:32, Josh Berkus ha scritto:
> Oh, and let's just go ahead and approve the pending training events 
> for the next 4 weeks so that we can discuss this some more without 
> having time pressure, since I don't think there's an easy answer to 
> the above. 
Ok, I have approved courses until the end of February.

Cheers,
Gabriele

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:03:33 +0000

Following a quick discussion with Magnus, I've approved all the rest.
It's clear that the vast majority of folks here support allowing much
more training than we currently do, and as it stands, the policy
actually says the moderators may reject more than 4 posts per quarter
at their discretion, i.e. accept by default.

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Gabriele Bartolini
<[email-masked]> wrote:
>> the next 4 weeks so that we can discuss this some more without having time
>> pressure, since I don't think there's an easy answer to the above.
>

-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 11:29:18 -0800

> at their discretion, i.e. accept by default.

Well, more training than we currently do *except for one training
provider*.  I was just checking, and that provider is still posting.
I'd like, as a moderator, to stick to the policy that we reject more
than 4 posts per quarter from CertFirst due to the simple reason that,
as reported, they cancel/reschedule a high proportion of their trainings.

For that matter, if we received a similar report about any other
training provider, I think we should follow the same policy.  Works for
everybody?

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 19:30:56 +0000

> training provider, I think we should follow the same policy.  Works for

Works for me. Now whether we'll all remember when it matters of course...