Received: from magus.postgresql.org (magus.postgresql.org [87.238.57.229]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 932E7E60233 for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:25:27 -0400 (AST) Received: from zql.com ([206.222.31.58]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RrWdA-0004jy-PD for pgsql-www@postgresql.org; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 15:25:26 +0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=localhost) by zql.com with smtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1RrWcw-0000gP-7J; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:25:10 -0500 From: "Greg Sabino Mullane" To: pgsql-www@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Planet posting policy X-PGP-Key: 2529 DF6A B8F7 9407 E944 45B4 BC9B 9067 1496 4AC8 X-Request-PGP: http://www.biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 15:25:10 -0000 X-Mailer: JoyMail 2.4.0 Message-ID: <96e5156e36277877d18484a5148ad516@biglumber.com> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Archive-Number: 201201/61 X-Sequence-Number: 20459 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 > We currently have a strict posting policy for planet.postgresql.org > (http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Planet_PostgreSQL), which has been > applied in such a way that it prevents users posting anything to their > syndicated blogs which may be remotely considered to be advertising. > This has tripped up a number of our regular contributors in the past, > including some senior community members who have posted technical > content about their work which happens to be on commercial products > around PostgreSQL. Can you point to specific examples of blog posts that have been self-moderated as to not appear on Planet due to our policies? I think that would help this dicussion if we could see some actual problematic posts. I am open to changing the wording. > The primary test here is whether the information provided could be > considered pure advertising. Consider what the article would look like > if all references to any products were removed. If there is technical > content remaining that may be considered interesting to those working > with or around PostgreSQL, or the post is in some way describing the > "state of the art" (as related to PostgreSQL), then it is suitable for > syndication on Planet. In contrast, if all the remains is a list of > features with no technical discussion around their implementation, > then that is not suitable for syndication. I'm not seeing much of a distinction here. The key phrase of the existing one is "useful PostgreSQL content", which is a fairly broad description. I'm not sure what "state of the art (as related to PostgreSQL)" even means, honestly. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201201291021 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAk8lZKoACgkQvJuQZxSWSshKXACfcVYRphYehRIOjXC5nGKWWtY6 z7QAn11vigbf4r1D04K1k6b/73dTnD6p =FJlM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----