Received: from makus.postgresql.org (makus.postgresql.org [98.129.198.125]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D56FE60236 for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:42:20 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail-tul01m020-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RrZhj-0003R0-7t for pgsql-www@postgresql.org; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 18:42:20 +0000 Received: by obcva7 with SMTP id va7so3221368obc.19 for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:42:06 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.49.106 with SMTP id t10mr22804135obn.49.1327862526519; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:42:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.60.6.227 with HTTP; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:42:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 18:42:06 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Planet posting policy From: Dave Page To: Magnus Hagander Cc: PostgreSQL WWW Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Archive-Number: 201201/62 X-Sequence-Number: 20460 Hi On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:59, Dave Page wrote: >> Hi, >> >> 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. >> >> I'd like to propose relaxing this policy (or perhaps the >> interpretation of it) to allow useful content to be posted that >> happens to be centered around commercial products, whilst being >> careful to avoid pure advertising content which we certainly do not >> want (and should continue to be posted as news or pgsql-announce >> articles). >> >> The current policy has the following notes guiding on its interpretation: >> >> --- >> The primary test here is whether the information provided would be of >> some use even to people who have no interest in the commercial product >> mentioned. Consider what your entry would look like if all references >> to the product were removed. If there's no useful PostgreSQL content >> left after doing that, that post is an ad. >> --- >> >> I'd like to suggest changing that to something like the following: >> >> --- >> The primary test here is whether the information provided could be >> considered pure advertising. Consider what the article would look like > > I don't like the use of "pure advertising". That makes it go overboard > in the other direction instead - it's too easy to argue that almost > *anything* isn't *pure* advertising... OK. >> 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 > > I'm not sure what the "state of the art" part is actually supposed to > mean? As in, what does it actually add on top of the already bbeing > interesting to those working with or around postgres? I was trying to find a way to allow posts that aren't purely technical in nature. For example, if a company started a new website that happened to have 10TB of geo data stored in Postgres, I'd want to hear about it as a good example of Postgres being used in "state of the art" ways, even if it wasn't necessarily a post about how they did it in technical detail. >> 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. >> --- > > Should we perhaps also add something about referring to things that > are IP protected, such as patented technologies, that we don't really > want people posting about? Sure. >> I'm not wed to that wording - in fact I'm sure we can do better. >> However, I hope the intent is clear. Whilst we have had one or two >> cases where pure advertising has been removed from Planet, their have >> also been cases where potentially interesting posts have had to be >> removed due to the strictness of the policy interpretation, which is >> unfortunate for everyone. > > While I don't disagree with relaxing the policies a bit, I only recall > a single instance of this actually happening recently, and in that > case it would've also failed the new wording above. Do you have some > examples? (if you don't want to post those publically for obvious > reasons, feel free to just remind me personally or the closed > moderators list about those cases, so we are not missing that > information) The cases I'm thinking of probably include the one you're thinking of, however I thought we blocked two posts from different authors on essentially the same subject. Maybe I'm misremembering though, and we let one of them pass. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company