Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B6886327D1 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:08:56 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 85747-05 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:08:53 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from yx-out-2324.google.com (yx-out-2324.google.com [74.125.44.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43A9E632542 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:08:53 -0300 (ADT) Received: by yx-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 8so338304yxm.73 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 08:08:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.136.12 with SMTP id j12mr2159949ybd.77.1239894532549; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 08:08:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <200904161454.n3GEsxm27869@momjian.us> References: <16454.1239890476@sss.pgh.pa.us> <200904161454.n3GEsxm27869@momjian.us> Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:08:52 +0100 Message-ID: <937d27e10904160808w21a2ebbcs57136807df000680@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Archives policy From: Dave Page To: Bruce Momjian Cc: Tom Lane , PostgreSQL www Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.085 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL=0.085 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200904/73 X-Sequence-Number: 16940 On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Dave Page writes: >> > Can I get comments/objections/opinions on this draft policy please? >> > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Archives_Policy >> >> Hmm, the first section suggests that there are cases where we will >> de-archive messages, and then the second lays out all the reasons >> why we won't and why it's useless to ask. =A0So I'm still confused >> what the policy is. =A0I would be happy with a policy that says >> "The archives are graven on stone tablets. =A0Don't bother asking." >> but if we are willing to editorialize in extreme cases then maybe >> the second part needs to be modified. > > I didn't say it earlier but I agree with Tom that the text is much too > verbose. OK, well I've removed the bit about removing illegal/unwanted material. FWIW, we *will* remove such unwanted content, otherwise we could easily become an online archive for pr0n/warez etc. which will certainly not do our reputation any good. I've left the reasons why we won't remove/edit other messages as-is for now. That's the main part I find myself explaining on a regular basis so removing it defeats much of the purpose of the page. I'm happy to hear suggestions for changes or improvements of course. --=20 Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com