Subject: Planet posting policy

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:59:29 +0000

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
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 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.

-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 12:19:33 +0100

> 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...

> "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?

> 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?

> 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)

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

---

From: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 15:25:10 -0000

> content about their work which happens to be on commercial products

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.

> 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 [email-masked]
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201201291021
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 18:42:06 +0000

Hi

> *anything* isn't *pure* advertising...

OK.

> 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.

> want people posting about?

Sure.

> moderators list about those cases, so we are not missing that

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.

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 18:47:28 +0000

On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
>

I have no idea of any posts that have been self-moderated, except for
one of my own which I posted only to the EnterpriseDB blog:
http://blogs.enterprisedb.com/2011/08/23/postgres-enterprise-manager-i-love-it-when-a-plan-comes-together/

I would have liked to have been able to post that to my regular blog
so it appeared on Planet, though had I thought that possible I would
have gone into more technical detail about how the product is
architected, and made it less "marketing" sounding.

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:21:49 -0800

Dave,

I think a list of what's prohibited would be simpler:

==================

The purpose of Planet PostgreSQL is to provide useful news, ideas,
technical information, and community discussion for members of the
PostgreSQL community.  It is not a medium for advertising commercial
products and services; the community has other channels for that.
Therefore, the following kinds of content are prohibited from Planet
PostgreSQL, and may cause your blog to be removed from syndication if
you post them:

* Posts whose primary purpose is to advertise a commercial product,
service, website, or event and lack substantial technical information or
news of community interest;

* Multiple and frequent posts which center around the same commercial
product, service, event, or website with significant advertising content.

Since the above evaluations are qualitative, here's some examples:

BAD: Post announcing the launch of your new PostGIS-based website,
without any real mention of PostGIS.

GOOD: Post announcing the launch of your new PostGIS-based website, with
a couple sentences about how it's based on PostGIS.

BAD: 5 posts in a row about the new PostGIS website, all of which lack
siginificant technical content.

GOOD: Post about your commercial Postgres fork, how it differs from
mainstream PostgreSQL, and why you'd want to use it.

GOOD: Post about the technical challenges you overcame when developing
your commercial Postgres fork.

BAD: Post announcing the availability of version 3.5.641 of your
commercial Postgres fork, with details copied directly from the press
release.

==============================

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:55:50 +0000

> I think a list of what's prohibited would be simpler:

I like that.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:25:38 -0500

> want (and should continue to be posted as news or pgsql-announce

While I am not against relaxing the rules, it would be a shame if the
new rules were more vague than the old ones.  The old rules, while
strict, were very easy to mentally filter;  I am worried more vague
rules will lead to more uncertainty and perhaps arguments/hurt feelings.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <[email-masked]>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

---

From: Peter Geoghegan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 05:21:57 +0000

> art" ways, even if it wasn't necessarily a post about how they did it

Are you sure that that wouldn't be allowed under our current policy?
I'd have thought that was fine, provided that it was actually useful.

I'm unsure of my position relating to relaxing those rules. I wouldn't
like to arbitrarily prevent someone from talking about a topic of
actual interest or utility to the community on the sole basis that it
mentioned proprietary software or commercial services in an incidental
or matter-of-fact fashion. That wasn't how I understood the rules to
work though.

It might be helpful if you could cite a specific incident of the
current rules tripping someone up in a way that was clearly against
the community's interest.

Bruce has a good point - the rules should be easily understood.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:50:20 +0000

> I'd have thought that was fine, provided that it was actually useful.

It might have been under the policy itself, however we've been
interpreting that based on the guidance notes which are pretty strict,
and essentially only allow posts of a purely technical nature.

> the community's interest.

I can't do that I'm afraid, as it may cause embarrassment for the
people/companies involved.

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:55:10 +0000

> rules will lead to more uncertainty and perhaps arguments/hurt feelings.

To some extent I think that's unavoidable. The current rules are
interpreted pretty strictly and state that unless there is "useful
PostgreSQL content" when product names have been removed, it will not
be allowed. The issue I have with that is that it precludes
*interesting* posts which may describe new products based on use of
PostgreSQL in innovative or unusual ways. That's happened a couple of
times in the past.

---

From: Peter Geoghegan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:30:59 +0000

> people/companies involved.

Maybe you should contact them privately and ask them to share their grievances?

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:19:40 +0100

> architected, and made it less "marketing" sounding.

I think that blog post itself is a very good example of content we
*don't* necessarily want on planet.

It's too bad you didn't write a version that had the technical detali
and was less marketing/pressrelease:y to compare with :-) Because
AIUI, you don't actually suggest changing the policies as far as to
allow that post as it is - it would've allowed the modified version
only?

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:24:36 +0100

> I'd have thought that was fine, provided that it was actually useful.

I think it is, under the "it's a use-case of postgresql". I don't see
how it would fail to pass the current policies?

if they built it on postgres plus advanced server, or greenplum, it
would be off limits, because then it's not related to postgresql other
than in "second generation".

> or matter-of-fact fashion. That wasn't how I understood the rules to

Me either. It might be that the rules are fine and the *guidelines*
are unclear on that though. But the rule of "if you strip mentioning
of the commercial product, is it still interesting to the community"
would seem to allow that pretty well in my understanding.

> the community's interest.

Yes. I realize, as you said later downthread, that you can't really do
it without casting said persons/companie in bad light. But perhaps you
can try to "anonymize" an example?

> Bruce has a good point - the rules should be easily understood.

Yes, this is important. Both to make it clear to people what is ok and
what isn't, and also to decrease the risk of long-running arguments
when something *is* moderated. (Which has, under these rules, happened
extremely seldom)

---

From: Simon Riggs <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:29:10 +0000

> *don't* necessarily want on planet.

Yeh. It all seems quite simple to me. We're here to contribute to a
specific open source project, so write a blog about what you have done
lately that furthers those goals.

-- 
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:57:34 -0500

> and essentially only allow posts of a purely technical nature.

I think the real risk we have in relaxing the rules is that postings
will be made who's _intent_ is to highlight a commercial product.  Once
the indent is commercial promotion, the blog itself isn't very
interesting to others.

We have succussfully blocked such postings --- the big question is
whether we can allow postings based on commercial products without
having postings that are "intended" to be promotional.

I think Dave or Josh mention the pitfall tangentially --- if someone's
intent is promotional, they might blog about how to do X with some
commercial product, then, next week, show how to do Y with some
commercial product.  Imagine them thinking, "Oh, I haven't blogged about
my commercial product in a while, and the Postgres blog is very popular,
let me think of how to do that again."

I am not saying that will happen, but it might happen if we aren't as
clear as we are now in the guidelines.  And if our rules are not as
clear as they are now, we then have to guess what their intent was, and
pick apart the blog post to get facts to support our interpretation.

I think everyone kind of agrees our rules are too tight, but it is
unclear how to relax them _clearly_.

---

From: Cédric Villemain <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:11:31 +0100

> unclear how to relax them _clearly_.

I don't know exactly about rules but I am happy to read
planet.postgresql with the current contents (so the rules looks good
so far)
I won't if its to read about internals of close-source products or
derivate work from close-source product where removing the name of the
close-source thing is going to remove the interest of the article for
PostgreSQL and derivate open-source toools and projects.
Also I am not interested in content I won't be able to use because of
licence restriction. (not off-topic I believe)

Maybe the next time someone got a post refused he/she can be asked if
he agrees to be used to debate the rules change...

-- 
Cédric Villemain +33 (0)6 20 30 22 52
http://2ndQuadrant.fr/
PostgreSQL: Support 24x7 - Développement, Expertise et Formation

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:58:53 -0800

> *don't* necessarily want on planet.

See, while for me it's exactly the kind of post I think *should* be
included.  Because I'm a working consultant, I'm interested in what the
various commercial forks can do for my customers, and as a PostgreSQL
hacker I'm interested in what the various commercial tools tell us about
our users.  As long as it's not press releases.

I don't think it's going to be possible to have one feed which pleases
everyone.  Maybe we should have two feeds?  /oss and /universe ?

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:00:26 +0100

> our users.  As long as it's not press releases.

Did you read the example? It *was* basically a press release...

> everyone.  Maybe we should have two feeds?  /oss and /universe ?

Sure, we could probably find a way to do that, but is the demand
really high enough to make it worth it?

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:05:17 -0800

Magnus,

> Did you read the example? It *was* basically a press release...

Not from my perspective.  Dave's post tells me in factual language
exactly what the features of PEM are (or are intended to be), sufficient
to let me know if I should investigate PEM for my customers and PUG or
not.

And if you compare it to the EDB press release on the same topic, you'll
note some dramatic content and style differences.  Based on the EDB
press release, I'd dismissed PEM as yet more EDB vaporware until I got
to pgOpen.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:06:01 -0500

> he agrees to be used to debate the rules change...

While I agree with you, I should point out that it is unclear what we
are _not_ seeing on Planet Postgres which could also be of interest.

I think the other comment wanting to see an example of what we are
missing might be the only way we can figure this out.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:11:16 -0500

> really high enough to make it worth it?

I think the big question is whether our announce list is sufficient
(which allows commercial postings) or whether there is stuff that
doesn't fit on announce that should be on our blog.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:19:09 -0500

> press release, I'd dismissed PEM as yet more EDB vaporware until I got

Let me add I do slip commercial stuff into my blog if it make sense ---
e.g. if I am speaking to the Boston user group, and doing training there
as well, I mention the training, but that isn't the topic of the blog
post (http://momjian.us/main/blogs/pgblog/2012.html#January_16_2012_2).

Also, I think the commercial PEM product could be blogged about if it
allows users to see aspects of Postgres via graphs that are not usually
visible.  Also, it possible to blog about Postgres running on the cloud
and tangentially mention the EDB cloud product, or other cloud products.
(I mentioned commercial products when I blogged about monitoring, 
http://momjian.us/main/blogs/pgblog/2011.html#November_30_2011.)

In summary, there are ways to do it now, but it has to be done
carefully.

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:37:24 -0800

> press release, I'd dismissed PEM as yet more EDB vaporware until I got

I have to say I am with JoshB on this one. I want to know *all* about 
PostgreSQL. I want Greenplum, VMWare, EDB Advanced Server and .Org 
represented because they all directly apply to what I do for a living. I 
want to know about all the tools and all the options available to me.

JD

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
The PostgreSQL Conference - http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
@cmdpromptinc - @postgresconf - 509-416-6579

---

From: "Jonathan S. Katz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:56:36 -0500

On Jan 30, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> I have to say I am with JoshB on this one. I want to know *all* about PostgreSQL. I want Greenplum, VMWare, EDB Advanced Server and .Org represented because they all directly apply to what I do for a living. I want to know about all the tools and all the options available to me.

Though these may seem like opposing arguments, I agree with both Simon and JD.  Planet blog entries should be pertaining specifically what's going on in the noncommercial part of the community, but at the same time, it's good for the world to be aware of what is being developed commercial and how PostgreSQL and it's derivatives are being employed.  After all, a lot of the commercial development does help provide the necessary financing to put new features into core.

That being said, based on the proposals for the Planet acceptance policy, there is too much of a "gray line" on what is acceptable (even by just debate on the list over one entry).  Having two separate feeds is a possibility, and has a few pros:

* Highlight both feeds on the postgresql.org home page (both in separate sections, and I would put community higher up) - show what is happening in the community, and what is happening the commercial world, hopefully driving more interest in both
* Eliminate "confusion" over what is acceptable content in the community blogs

Having a commercial.planet.postresql.org could help community members working on commercial products highlight some of the cool stuff they are doing, while not taking away from community-led efforts.  Thus the policy could be:

* If the work is strictly community related (i.e. the work is going directly into core, some extension, or some open-source Postgres derivative or project), then it's on planet
* If the work is for a commercial product, it goes on the other feed

Jonathan

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 09:34:10 +0000

> *don't* necessarily want on planet.

As written. I don't think it's a million miles off though.

> allow that post as it is - it would've allowed the modified version

Correct - though I would have described the basic features of course,
as would be necessary to give the appropriate context to the technical
detail.

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 09:40:56 +0000

> our users.  As long as it's not press releases.

Right - and we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Planet isn't
their primarily for us; it's there for the users. Some of them
probably only want to know about PostgreSQL itself, whilst others will
certainly be interested in the entire eco-system around PostgreSQL.

In just about every other aspect of what we do, we encourage input and
content from commercial and OSS product vendors alike, both about
their products and because they're vendors we're happy to be
associated with; news, events, announcements, press quotes, the
product catalogue etc. etc. Planet is the only exception to this I can
think of.

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 09:42:37 +0000

> doesn't fit on announce that should be on our blog.

-announce is for press-release type stuff, which we definitely do not
want on Planet. Similarly, we wouldn't want technical write ups on
-announce.

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 17:27:16 +0100

> their primarily for us; it's there for the users. Some of them

Agreed. Which is why it's interesting that those posting in favor of
allowing more "commercially oriented" posts are the people who either
have commercial products they'd consider blogging about or have
previous been asked to remove at least one post from the planet... At
least AFAICT, forgive me if I got one wrong or so, but the majority is
certainly that way...

But we haven't heard from any of those users that it's actually there for.

Maybe we should post a survey on postgresql.org or something to gauge
the *outside* interest?

> product catalogue etc. etc. Planet is the only exception to this I can

Well, we rate-limit post in other scenarios. If we do allow it on
planet, we should probably at least rate-limit it the same way we do
for news. While we could (and it would probably make sense to) apply
the same policy as we do for news, it would be a lot harder to
actually follow up on it on planet since we don't moderate the posts
there.

The only technical solution I see to that that seems reasonably easy
to build would be to have those who want to post these more commercial
posts on their blog register for a special "permission" to do that,
and that those posts ends up being moderated in the same way we
moderate news today. That might work reasonably well, but it's
certainly a more complex process...

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 16:43:48 +0000

> least AFAICT, forgive me if I got one wrong or so, but the majority is

Well, from a sample set of half a dozen or so community members
overall. That doesn't really tell us anything though.

> Maybe we should post a survey on postgresql.org or something to gauge

That doesn't seem unreasonable.

> certainly a more complex process...

Yeah. But that's also drifting off-topic slightly - the question in
debate here is "do we want to relax the rules", which a number of
people have been in favour of, and only one against if I'm counting
correctly, and if so, how do we do so without going too far in the
other direction? We only really need a moderation system if people
don't follow the guidelines.

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:07:40 -0800

> don't follow the guidelines.

A poll will be mostly useless. It is going to only get responses from 
those who:

A. Care about polls
B. Read the poll section
C. Are directly .Org people (versus remotely)

The question to me really boils down to, do we want to relax the rules 
in an order to increase readership and the value (intellectual) of the 
content.

As long as the rules are as they are, we are limiting the advocacy power 
of Planet. Maybe that is what we want, maybe not but as Dave has said, 
most are in favor of relaxing the rules.

JD

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 19:18:48 +0100

> overall. That doesn't really tell us anything though.

Agreed - that's excatly the problem.

> That doesn't seem unreasonable.

Josh (B), I think you are the one who normally post those - do you
have anything else scheduled up that this would conflict with? I'm
assuming not since AFAIK you still haven't tried to even use the new
interface? ;)

> don't follow the guidelines.

Yes, I also only count one actual "no" - but I count at least four as
basically saying "need to know what this would actually mean before I
can judge if this is a good idea"... And that's pretty much everybody
who doesn't fall into the category above of being one of the probable
*posters* of such posts.

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 19:22:16 +0100

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 19:07, Joshua D. Drake <[email-masked]> wrote:
> A poll will be mostly useless. It is going to only get responses from those
> who:
>
> A. Care about polls
> B. Read the poll section

The reasonable tihng would be to announce the poll on *planet*. That
would make it reach exactly the people we want, which is, those who
read planet.

> The question to me really boils down to, do we want to relax the rules in an
> order to increase readership and the value (intellectual) of the content.

No, it also boils down to if relaxing the rule *does* increase
readership (probably, but *far* from certain) and the value (much more
in debate, I'd say) of planet.

> As long as the rules are as they are, we are limiting the advocacy power of
> Planet. Maybe that is what we want, maybe not but as Dave has said, most are

Is it *for* advocacy, or is it for getting "actual information" for
people who are already users? That's a separate question.

> in favor of relaxing the rules.

I don't agree with that statement. I'd say the majority is *undecided*
at this point, because they don't know what it would mean.

The majority *of the people who would be posting other things under
these rules* are in favor of it. That is hardly surprising. In fact,
if they were against it, we wouldn't even be discussing this, and the
thread would probably never have been started.

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:56:43 -0800

> would make it reach exactly the people we want, which is, those who

I would agree this would be a reasonable sample but I would not agree 
that it is as reasonable as it could be (how to solve it, I don't know).
> in debate, I'd say) of planet.

I am not sure how much debate there really is except from a puritanical 
sense that doesn't really add to the value of the content. It is 
directly appropriate to read about vPostgres and all its goodness on 
planet (same as Advanced server, IMO).

> people who are already users? That's a separate question.

Good point.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 17:04:52 -0500

On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 10:56:43AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> I would agree this would be a reasonable sample but I would not
> agree that it is as reasonable as it could be (how to solve it, I
> don't know).
> >
> >
> I am not sure how much debate there really is except from a
> puritanical sense that doesn't really add to the value of the
> content. It is directly appropriate to read about vPostgres and all
> its goodness on planet (same as Advanced server, IMO).

If I was sure that commercial content would be posted with the same
regularity and motivation as our current content, I would be fine, but
knowing companies, I doubt that is true.

I can imagine company X saying, "Oh, we have a new product coming out
--- we need a blog campaign around that."  I am afraid that isn't going
to be pretty.

Now, as a counter example, I just looked at the EnterpriseDB blog and
saw what they blogged about the cloud product they just released:

	http://blogs.enterprisedb.com/

There are only two blog entries, and the rest are PG community ones from
me, so I guess if they aren't totally spamming their own
company-controlled blog, they might not do too much harm on Planet
Postgres.

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:15:39 -0800

> --- we need a blog campaign around that."  I am afraid that isn't going

I would agree with that and I am not suggesting we allow press releases 
or advertising etc... However, I do think relevant technical information 
on a product is useful.

JD

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 18:29:58 -0500

On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 02:15:39PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> I would agree with that and I am not suggesting we allow press
> releases or advertising etc... However, I do think relevant
> technical information on a product is useful.

Well, as you can see, I am arguing both points, so I am more shooting
out possible ideas rather than having a clear goal myself.

---

From: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 23:41:15 -0000

> don't follow the guidelines.

Counting, and polls, is silly: what we really need is a rough consensus 
(from those of us that care enough to read this list) on what is best 
for the project. Nonetheless, count me as a -1 for changing the 
guidelines until a better rationale and some solid examples are given.
I think the onus is on those proposing a change to convince us the 
status quo is not working.

Also -1 to creating a second "corporate-focused" blog.

For an example of what a aggregator with a more relaxed policy might 
look like, check out planet.mysql.com. It used to be a tighter, 
more technically focused blog, but it is now a firehouse of all sorts 
of things that I find challenging to wade through and keep up with 
(although the blast of Oracle-related posts has subsided a bit in 
the past few months).

- -- 
Greg Sabino Mullane [email-masked]
End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201202011838
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8

---

From: Alvaro Herrera <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 21:55:47 -0300

> (although the blast of Oracle-related posts has subsided a bit in 

Yeah.  I used to like how Planet Gnome and Debian aggregated every
article from their authors, regardless of whether it was Gnome- or
Debian-specific or not.  It gave the planet a more familiar feel.
However, I don't like that idea anymore.  You end up reading how they
feed their cats and such.  I guess it works for them because it's mainly
for their own internal consumption, or something like that.  For me, as
an outsider, it's not all that interesting.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera <[email-masked]>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:15:14 -0500

> least AFAICT, forgive me if I got one wrong or so, but the majority is

Yes, although I'll point out that the post I got removed was one which
would still be prohibited under my suggested new policy.

Personally, I really do think two feeds is the only answer ...

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

---

From: Greg Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:49:16 -0400

> problematic posts. I am open to changing the wording.

Missed this party first time around, chiming in late.  We have a whole 
category full of them at http://blog.2ndquadrant.com/en/greenplum/

These examples are further over the line here than the one Dave 
suggested from his own blog.  They're a useful data point though just 
for that reason.  Any rewritten policy that makes these suddenly Planet 
material has likely gone too far.  While surely there's somebody who 
thinks a Planet PostgreSQL that also mixes in regular Greenplum features 
is a great idea, I'd put my bet on that being a poor choice.

The line is closer for EDB and PEM.  I think it's possible to write a 
PEM blog post that fits the current rules.  If I were tasked with doing 
that, I'd start with some informative comments about things that are 
hard to monitor in regular PostgreSQL, and what sorts of problems the 
general management headaches related to it cause.  Then an ending that 
introduces PEM as an example of how one company addressed those problems 
in a commercial product would be fine.  I'd walk away knowing something 
useful about common deployment problems, and the fact that a commercial 
product was suggested as one way to solve them would be helpful.

I was the original author of the stickiest of the paragraphs here, this one:

"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."

That came out of seeing two similar violations appear in a short period, 
and trying to write something that would be helpful guidance to exclude 
both of them.  I hoped that text might improve one day to sound a bit 
more tolerant.  I still don't have a good counter-example to chew on yet 
though, something that would be blocked by this suggestion but is likely 
to be popular anyway.  It's a tricky line to draw.

-- 
Greg Smith   2ndQuadrant US    [email-masked]   Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 08:10:45 +0000

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 4:49 AM, Greg Smith <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> The line is closer for EDB and PEM.  I think it's possible to write a PEM
> blog post that fits the current rules.  If I were tasked with doing that,
> I'd start with some informative comments about things that are hard to
> monitor in regular PostgreSQL, and what sorts of problems the general
> management headaches related to it cause.  Then an ending that introduces
> PEM as an example of how one company addressed those problems in a
> commercial product would be fine.  I'd walk away knowing something useful
> about common deployment problems, and the fact that a commercial product was
> suggested as one way to solve them would be helpful.

It's interesting that you think that's possible. I've thus far refused
requests from our marketing department to do exactly at as I thought
it would certainly be a violation of the policy. I'm not convinced it
wouldn't be even now, but it's interesting to know you might find
something acceptable. When I get a hour (probably a couple of years
from now as things are currently looking!) I might give it a whirl and
run it past you guys.

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:16:04 -0700

> is a great idea, I'd put my bet on that being a poor choice.

I had a discussion about this with other OSS projects while at PyCon
this year (mostly due to the Planet Mozilla firestorm, but that's
another story).  Several OSS projects have a "main" and a "universe"
feeds, with the "main" being strictly limited to stuff about the
project, and "universe" being anything someone with any approved blog
wants to post.   This has worked well for the organizations who
implemented it.

Other groups have strict planets ( like ours ), and still others (Gnome,
Mozilla, etc.) have very liberal feeds where anyone who is a project
developer can post whatever they want (and do).

As an example, I want to read about 2Q's stuff on Greenplum.  I can
understand, though, that a lot of Postgres users wouldn't want to.  If
we had a "universe" feed, I'd both subscribe to it and post to it.  For
another example, my "Booze and Brogrammers" post really belonged on a
"universe" instead of "main", but I was faced with a binary choice and
put it on Planet.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

---

From: Greg Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:01:02 -0400

On 04/17/2012 04:10 AM, Dave Page wrote:
> something acceptable.

I would think this format would work:

-What things do people like to monitor/manage on their Postgres database?
-Quick intro to what the free tools can do [pgAdmin III, Munin, etc.]
-Discussion of the things that PEM provides

If people walk away having learned something about monitoring and tools 
for PostgreSQL in general, I'd consider that a useful article meeting 
the standard I suggested here--"information provided would be of some 
use even to people who have no interest in the commercial product 
mentioned"--even if it ended with a discussion of how PEM aims to solve 
those problems.

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:21:28 -0700

> mentioned"--even if it ended with a discussion of how PEM aims to solve

As would I.

JD

---

From: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 03:13:40 -0000

> "universe" instead of "main", but I was faced with a binary choice and

No, that belonged on Planet, it's an important discussion.

However, I'm against a "universe" feed. Too easy for posts to slip 
from one side to the other, making nobody happy (the main people 
will be upset if something they care about goes to universe, and 
will also be upset if something that should be[1] in universe 
makes it way to main.

[1] "should be" according to them! There's the rub.

- -- 
Greg Sabino Mullane [email-masked]
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201204172312
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8

---

From: Greg Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 23:50:31 -0400

On 04/17/2012 01:16 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> For another example, my "Booze and Brogrammers" post really belonged on a

Luckily I have a PostgreSQL 9.1 "With a community that knows how to 
party" poster here to remember the old Josh by.  I'm planning a round of 
memorial shots at the Royal Oak next month.

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 08:46:58 +0100

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Greg Smith <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Luckily I have a PostgreSQL 9.1 "With a community that knows how to party"
> poster here to remember the old Josh by.  I'm planning a round of memorial
> shots at the Royal Oak next month.

Good call.

---

From: Robert Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:02:23 -0400

>> shots at the Royal Oak next month.

+1 for hanging out some place and drinking until late at night; -1 for
that place being the Royal Oak.

And just to throw in some content that's not totally off-topic, I can
see the possible value of a universe feed.  I've occasionally posted
things and wondered whether they were closely enough related to
PostgreSQL to justify putting them on planet; and I've also refrained
from posting things at all due to marginal relevance.  On the other
hand, it's not entirely clear to me that two feeds would be better for
our user base.  Right now, if you scan down the Planet feed, you're
likely to find some things that are interesting to you and some that
aren't.  Odds are very good that the same would be true of a
Planet-Universe feed, so maybe we'd just be giving people two things
to look at instead of one.

It seems to me that people are already playing fairly fast and loose
with the policy.  For example:

http://lethargy.org/~jesus/writes/omnios has nothing obviously to do
with PostgreSQL whatsoever.

http://michael.otacoo.com/postgresql-2/postgres-xc-1-0beta1-released/
is about a fork of PostgreSQL.  Is it more acceptable to blog about
that than about Greenplum or PPAS because it's open source?  If so,
fine, but I don't think I've seen that spelled out anywhere.

http://pyrseas.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/database-user-interfaces-pagination/
has some connection to PostgreSQL, but only really in that it's
talking about a technology stack that has PostgreSQL buried in it
somewhere, not because there's anything actually relevant to
PostgreSQL in that particular blog post.

And that is just the front page.  In contrast, if you look through the
history of what Dave, Bruce, and I have posted on Planet, you will
find essentially no mentions of any EnterpriseDB product anywhere.  At
the end of the day, I don't really care that much what content we do
or don't allow on Planet, but seems pretty clear that EnterpriseDB and
2ndQuadrant are self-censoring out of an abundance of caution and a
desire to play by community rules, and other people aren't doing that
to the same degree.  Again, I don't have a strong opinion on what we
should or should not allow, but it would be nice if we were all on the
same page.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

---

From: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:02:31 -0000

> with the policy.  For example:

Thanks for calling this out. I agree there have been some 
posts of late that are outside both the current guidelines, 
and even the proposed looser ones. The question is, who calls 
them out and what do we do about it? I call them out from time 
to time - sometimes it works, sometimes it leads to long threads 
with no action. Part of having a clear policy of course, is that 
it removes subjectiveness and doesn't make people feel like they 
are being picked on.

> with PostgreSQL whatsoever.

Agreed. Very cool, but very off topic.

> fine, but I don't think I've seen that spelled out anywhere.

It does seem like more of an -announce, but we've never discouraged 
cross-posting, so to speak. Separately, yes, I think we do give more leeway to 
things that are not just Postgres-related, but Postgres-like in 
licensing and source availablity. Whether we should spell this out 
in the policy, I don't know. To be honest, posts like this do make me 
reconsider my policy of not making a post for each Bucardo or DBD::Pg 
beta / new release.

> PostgreSQL in that particular blog post.

I'm okay overall with this one, probably because it is so short and is 
part of an ongoing series (kind of), but I see your point.

> At the end of the day, I don't really care that much what content we do
> to the same degree.

I do care what content we allow, as we don't want a firehose, we want things 
to be relevant to most readers, and we want the planet to reflect positively on 
the project as a whole. If you feel people or companies are not playing by 
the current rules, feel free to name them here. I think most are playing 
by the rules, but I usually skim planet via RSS on my phone; I will make more 
of an effort in the future to consider appropriateness and report here.

- -- 
Greg Sabino Mullane [email-masked]
End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201204181200
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:10:12 -0700

> of an effort in the future to consider appropriateness and report here.

Why don't we just make it self policing?

If you are logged into planet, there is a button that says "report". 
Anyone who is logged in can report a post as offtopic or innappropriate 
(although I haven't seen any of those). That moderation report would 
submit to the planet admins list for review.

Thus.... the readers who log in, set the stage for what is allowed 
versus some arbitrary small group of people who "think" they know what 
the community wants.

JD

---

From: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:20:31 -0000

> Anyone who is logged in can report a post as offtopic or innappropriate 

Well, we could try, but I doubt it would work well, if the MySQL planet 
rating system is any indication. But I have no objection to trying. 
How soon can you have a patch ready? :)

> as offtopic or innappropriate 
> (although I haven't seen any of those).

Really?

> versus some arbitrary small group of people who "think" they know what 

Well, we are the community. Anyone is welcome to post to this list 
and contribute. Perhaps only those of us who are vocal and take the time 
to post are misrepresenting the community, but it's hard to know.

- -- 
Greg Sabino Mullane [email-masked]
End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201204181219
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8