Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: About docbot
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:08:20 +0200
Message-ID: <6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCEA356F5@algol.sollentuna.se>
In-Reply-To: <20060922021052.GB3402@fetter.org>
Thread-Topic: [pgsql-www] About docbot
Thread-Index: Acbd7HL92aTWXVgvTxOLTlrBgT7k2AASnLSg
References: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0609220035420.9196@base.wars-nicht.de>
	<45132ECB.1010301@commandprompt.com>
	<94E29260-41B1-4B9A-93A6-523364021B9F@ehpg.net>
	<20060922021052.GB3402@fetter.org>
From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net>
To: "David Fetter" <david@fetter.org>, "Gavin M. Roy" <gmr@ehpg.net>
Cc: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>,
	"Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum" <ads@pgug.de>,
	"PostgreSQL WWW" <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>

> > Sounds iffy to me.   Lending the hostname makes this an official
> (or
> > officially endorsed) thing.  Would it be branded and such the
> same as
> > the main website?

Also, we have been working hard to *decrease* the number of distinct
websites in the PostgreSQL domain. So please let's try to avoid adding
another one if we can.

Now, *assuming* this is a service that we want on the main site (I'm not
taking position on that yet, but it does seem pretty nifty), wouldn't
the logical place be to have it on http://search.postgresql.org, along
with the standard search?

Maybe even to the point of delivering docbot search results at the top
of the results, over the general search ones, based on the fact that
it's common keyword searching.


Where does it actually *live* today? Meaning where is the database
located, where does the IRC bot run, etc?


> > How is content controlled and would we have any ability to make
> sure
> > the image and content agrees with how the project presents
> itself?
>=20
> So far (3 years, give or take) there have been just two
> controversial
> URLs: one for fsm which pointed to venganza.org, which I removed at
> Jan Wieck's request on grounds of its political nature, and one for
> google which contains an unromantic Saxon-derived word denoting
> lovemaking, which is still there as far as I know.

Given that it's not open-access-write, I don't see how this would be any
more different than other content we have - we have even less control
over what goes into http://archives.postgresql.org for example, and we
can always do post-case cleanups.


//Magnus