Subject: Stalled news about ora2pg 11 on pg.org

From: damien clochard <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:34:27 +0200

Hi,

Last week, I submitted an article on pg.org (id #1459) about the release
of ora2pg11. The content is pretty much the same as the mail I sent to
-announce on the same day :

http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/[email-masked]

I see the article is not approved. Did I miss something ? Is there any
reason for this ?

Regards,

--
damien

-- 
Sent via pgsql-www mailing list ([email-masked])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-www

---

From: Simon Riggs <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 19:49:10 +0100

> I see the article is not approved. Did I miss something ? Is there any

2ndQuadrant has experienced significant delays in at least 3 cases
also. There is definitely a problem somewhere there.

Perhaps we should make all posts wait the same length of time, to
allow reasonable time to decide whether posts are suitable? 72 hours
seems like a reasonable time for this.

That way it would allow (and require) some planning.

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

---

From: Devrim GÜNDÜZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:02:05 +0300

Hi,

> I see the article is not approved. Did I miss something ? Is there any

Approved. Probably the moderators (including me) missed it.

Regards,
-- 
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.gunduz.org  Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:52:54 -0700

> also. There is definitely a problem somewhere there.

The delay is called "volunteer moderators who have day jobs".

> seems like a reasonable time for this.

Who is going to do this strictly time-limited approving?

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

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:59:18 -0400

> Who is going to do this strictly time-limited approving?

So it auto-approves after 72 hours?  I found this proposal vague.

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

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

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:00:27 +0200

> So it auto-approves after 72 hours?  I found this proposal vague.

If anything automatic were to happen after 72 hours, the reasonable
thing would be a rejection.

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

---

From: Alvaro Herrera <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:10:46 -0300

> thing would be a rejection.

... but that's not more helpful than not doing anything, because then
the submitter needs to submit again.  This creates a busy loop on which
submitter needs to watch status of his submitted news until it gets
approved.

I think the idea behind 72-hour auto-approve is that if it's obvious
spam someone will quickly reject it, and if it's not spam then it's not
worth rejecting.  I don't think this is very palatable either.

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

---

From: Simon Riggs <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:18:56 +0100

> thing would be a rejection.

*because* volunteers have day jobs, I was suggesting that we put in a
time delay so that even if approved, it still takes 72 hours to take
effect. And of course be default reject, not default approve.

That way nobody will notice that some things take 10 mins and others
extended numbers of days.

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:19:17 +0200

> submitter needs to watch status of his submitted news until it gets

I agree. But it's the only thing we could do at all there.

> worth rejecting.  I don't think this is very palatable either.

Given thta our moderators *clearly* don't have time to process it,
this is almost *guarantee* to get spam postings onto our site. It
won't work.

I think recruiting more moderators, or somehow convincing our current
ones to actually moderate more often is the only way to go.

---

From: Simon Riggs <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:22:40 +0100

> extended numbers of days.

To my knowledge, this is the only list that suffers such huge
differences in moderation times. (Do we measure that?)

I think something needs to happen to avoid that. Other suggestions welcome.

---

From: Alvaro Herrera <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:32:38 -0300

> differences in moderation times. (Do we measure that?)

Eh, list?  Do you mean mailing list?  I thought the problem here is
about posting to the news section of the postgresql.org website.

---

From: Simon Riggs <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:57:44 +0100

> about posting to the news section of the postgresql.org website.

Then clearly the problem happens in two places.

For me, delay is OK. What is difficult is not being able to predict
whether it will be 10 mins or 5 days. If it was always 5 days, that
would work perfectly. Clearly it can't always be 10 mins.

---

From: "Jonathan S. Katz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:58:10 -0400

> ones to actually moderate more often is the only way to go.

If helping to alleviate some of the delay issues would be to have more moderators, I would be happy to volunteer my time.

Perhaps another initiative (though this is a tech suggestion) is to send a daily digest of news stories awaiting approval to the moderators so that way there is a constant reminder to review news items.

Jonathan

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:10:18 +0200

> If helping to alleviate some of the delay issues would be to have more moderators, I would be happy to volunteer my time.

We can certainly do with more moderators. Unless there are any
objections, I think adding Jonathan would be a good idea?

> Perhaps another initiative (though this is a tech suggestion) is to send a daily digest of news stories awaiting approval to the moderators so that way there is a constant reminder to review news i…

This is something we already do, since many years back.

---

From: "Jonathan S. Katz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:10:46 -0400

> This is something we already do, since many years back.

Well, I think with that in place + a diligent moderation effort, that should prevent backlogs.

Jonathan

---

From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 23:20:52 +0200

> Then clearly the problem happens in two places.

still not getting that - the original complaint was about the news
section on the main website. What exactly is the "second" place?

> would work perfectly. Clearly it can't always be 10 mins.

well to be honest for a lot of our volunteers it is pretty hard to
predict when they can find time for this as well, sometimes they have
right at the moment when the submitter had time sometimes they dont...

Stefan

---

From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 23:25:24 +0200

> objections, I think adding Jonathan would be a good idea?

+1

> This is something we already do, since many years back.

yeah but the problem still is the same - most people do stuff in batches
(ie on a quick train ride or in a break) so the same time they read the
nagging mail the can just deal with the the real news item...

Stefan