To: Chander Ganesan <chander@otg-nc.com>
cc: Kevin Hunter <hunteke@earlham.edu>,
	"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>, Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>,
	Postgres WWW List <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>,
	Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Subject: Re: Training events policy ... first test case 
In-reply-to: <472D5EF4.7020900@otg-nc.com> 
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Chander Ganesan <chander@otg-nc.com>
	message dated "Sun, 04 Nov 2007 01:56:04 -0400"
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 01:15:34 -0500
Message-ID: <6444.1194156934@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

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?

Conversely, I think your ultimate concern is with companies that can
really only field 5 events but advertise 100 to see what will happen :-(

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".

			regards, tom lane