Received: from magus.postgresql.org (magus.postgresql.org [87.238.57.229]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 493E41288B2D for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 12:27:36 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail-yx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.213.174]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Rsd1u-00053l-0E for pgsql-www@postgresql.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:27:35 +0000 Received: by yenm8 with SMTP id m8so619226yen.19 for ; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 08:27:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.139.193 with SMTP id c41mr41734371yhj.24.1328113636493; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 08:27:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.205.16 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 08:27:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <96e5156e36277877d18484a5148ad516@biglumber.com> <4F26DA5D.7040808@agliodbs.com> Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 17:27:16 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Planet posting policy From: Magnus Hagander To: Dave Page Cc: Josh Berkus , pgsql-www@postgresql.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Archive-Number: 201202/4 X-Sequence-Number: 20487 On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:40, Dave Page wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> >>> I think that blog post itself is a very good example of content we >>> *don't* necessarily want on planet. >> >> See, while for me it's exactly the kind of post I think *should* be >> included. =A0Because I'm a working consultant, I'm interested in what th= e >> 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. =A0As 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 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? > 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. 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... --=20 =A0Magnus Hagander =A0Me: http://www.hagander.net/ =A0Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/