Subject: Sponsorship Page Language

From: "Jonathan S. Katz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:55:28 -0500

Hello,

When looking at the sponsorship page (http://www.postgresql.org/about/sponsors/) I noticed a few things regarding the language that I've attempted to clean up with this patch.

The first regards the ordering of the sponsors - they are ordered randomly, not alphabetically, so I corrected the language up top.

The second has to do with the language on the bottom of the page discussing the sponsorship levels and selection process.  I reworded the sentences to more clearly state the purpose of the sponsorship levels are and how they are selected, maintaing a link to the guidelines on the wiki.

Best,

Jonathan

---

From: Thom Brown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:57:51 +0000

On 11 January 2013 15:55, Jonathan S. Katz
<[email-masked]>wrote:

> Hello,
>
> When looking at the sponsorship page (
> http://www.postgresql.org/about/sponsors/) I noticed a few things
> regarding the language that I've attempted to clean up with this patch.
>
> The first regards the ordering of the sponsors - they are ordered
> randomly, not alphabetically, so I corrected the language up top.
>
> The second has to do with the language on the bottom of the page
> discussing the sponsorship levels and selection process.  I reworded the
> sentences to more clearly state the purpose of the sponsorship levels are
> and how they are selected, maintaing a link to the guidelines on the wiki.
>

s/Sponsors are display/Sponsors are displayed/

s/using following/following/ although perhaps "in accordance with"

-- 
Thom

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:02:46 +0000

Hi

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Jonathan S. Katz
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> When looking at the sponsorship page
> (http://www.postgresql.org/about/sponsors/) I noticed a few things regarding
> the language that I've attempted to clean up with this patch.
>
> The first regards the ordering of the sponsors - they are ordered randomly,
> not alphabetically, so I corrected the language up top.

I would think a better option would be to fix the ordering so the page
works as intended.

> The second has to do with the language on the bottom of the page discussing
> the sponsorship levels and selection process.  I reworded the sentences to
> more clearly state the purpose of the sponsorship levels are and how they
> are selected, maintaing a link to the guidelines on the wiki.

The wording there was pretty carefully chosen after a long discussion
in the sponsor committee, so it shouldn't be changed on a whim. That
said, I don't actually think your wording is an improvement (though, I
may be biased as if memory serves I wrote that's there now).

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

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

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

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 17:06:08 +0100

> I would think a better option would be to fix the ordering so the page

We specifically changed that *from* alphabetical *to* random back in
September. After a discussion between you and me. We (I, I guess) just
forgot to change the label..

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

---

From: "Jonathan S. Katz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 11:08:15 -0500

> I would think a better option would be to fix the ordering so the page

I discussed with Magnus off-list about that prior to submitting the page, he suggested to change the wording

> may be biased as if memory serves I wrote that's there now).

Typo aside in the original text, reading through it did not make sense:

"Sponsorship levels are meant to provide the general public an idea of how levels are determined."

From that I glean that sponsorship levels tell me how sponsorship levels are determined.  Um...?

That said I understand that there was thought that went into the wording, particularly on the Wiki, thus I do not intend to throw everything out "on a whim," but that sentence is not clear at all.

I've included the patch with Thom's suggestions & fixes.

Jonathan

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:14:26 +0000

> forgot to change the label..

*checks mail*. Hmm, so we did. I'd forgotten that. However, it doesn't
actually seem to work very well, due to the varnish caching, which
prevents it changing between refreshes, making it look disorganised
rather than random (typically, I think people expect random things to
change every time you view them).

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 17:18:18 +0100

> change every time you view them).

It works as intended - that page has a shorter cache time to make sure
they switch over reasonably often. But yeah, I guess it's not fully
random. Perhaps we should just *remove* the reference to alphabetical
without putting in a reference about random.

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:24:37 +0000

> From that I glean that sponsorship levels tell me how sponsorship levels are

Hmm, yeah - that doesn't scan so well. I'm not sure it needs a
complete rewrite though - e.g.

"Sponsorship colours are meant to provide the general public an idea
of how levels are determined."

That's still not great and could be improved.

I think the important part is actually the second sentence though, as
that's the bit we wanted to be clear on - and that reads OK to me.

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:26:11 +0000

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]> wrote:
> shorter cache time to make sure

"Sponsors are listed in no particular order..."?

---

From: Simon Riggs <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:28:29 +0000

> without putting in a reference about random.

I think it would be better to say that there is no importance to the
order in which they are displayed, rather than discussing the exact
algorithm for placement.

A rotation scheme seems easier to do fairly. Rotate each hour?

We could just show the logos and place them sideways so everybody on a level.

Personally, I don't see any relevance in listing a country and would
like that removed. 2ndQuadrant has been doing business outside UK for
10+ years, so its somewhat disingenuous to say "UK" next to it, as if
we were limited to only that locality. I hear that some other
companies also do business outside of their listed country.

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

---

From: Simon Riggs <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:28:53 +0000

> "Sponsors are listed in no particular order..."?

+1

---

From: "Jonathan S. Katz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 11:46:03 -0500

> that's the bit we wanted to be clear on - and that reads OK to me.

After some off-list discussion, proposal for the first sentence:

"Sponsorship levels are intended to recognize the contributions organizations have made to PostgreSQL."

The idea is that we're describing the purpose of sponsorship levels, that they are used to recognize organizations (whereas individuals are recognized on the contributors page), and the contributions are for PostgreSQL as a whole.

Reading the second sentence further, I can see why there was debate on some of the language choices (e.g. "simple majority" vs "majority" because as we have learned, some measures take a "supermajority" to pass through some organizations).

Jonathan

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:00:38 -0800

Jonathan,

> The second has to do with the language on the bottom of the page discussing the 
> sponsorship levels and selection process.  I reworded the sentences to more 
> clearly state the purpose of the sponsorship levels are and how they are 
> selected, maintaing a link to the guidelines on the wiki.

Thank you for taking this on!

Unfortunately, I think that your new wording is just as muddy as the
previous wording.  Can we use this instead?

"Sponsorship levels are based on both duration and volume of code and
non-code contributions to the project.  The list of project sponsors
every one to two years by the Sponsorship Committee<link>.  If you find
missing sponsors or inaccurate information on the sponsors list, please
contact <mailto>"

... this will also require us to have a mailto address for people to
contact.

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

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:08:27 -0800

> missing sponsors or inaccurate information on the sponsors list, please

You missed a word or two in there:

The list of project sponsors is reviewed approximately every years by 
the Sponsorship Committee<link>.

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC
@cmdpromptinc - 509-416-6579

---

From: Dimitri Fontaine <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 14:42:49 +0100

> companies also do business outside of their listed country.

I agree that we should either remove that column of expand it to full
coverage. It's harmful rather than anything else in its current form.

My understanding of why this information is provided at all would be, if
I had to guess, to show that we're talking about a worldwide project.
Then what about making a Map, even static, with whole countries colored
in the PostgreSQL logo color anywhere we have some company players. Not
just the head-quarters, but active people available to hire locally.

This would way more useful.

Last time I had to find a world map image, I used that one:

  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BlankMap-World-2009.PNG

I don't have the necessary skills to color it myself, please have at it
(or even better, use PostGIS!) :)

Regards,
-- 
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 16:48:42 +0100

> coverage. It's harmful rather than anything else in its current form.

I wouldn't consider it harmful. But I can agree with considering it useless.

> just the head-quarters, but active people available to hire locally.

That way of showring information can definitely be more useful. But
what would be interesting to plot on that map would be availability of
professional services, not sponsors.

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:58:45 -0800

> I had to guess, to show that we're talking about a worldwide project.

This is precisely the reason why that column is there -- it's to show
that the PostgreSQL project has international support.  It's not aimed
at advertising a company's service area; if people want that, they can
click on the logos, or use the Professional Services search.

The Sponsors page is also quite clear that only the HQ country of each
company is listed.  Nobody thinks that Red Hat or Google is only in the
USA; your worry that people will think that 2Q is UK-only on that basis
is quite unfounded.

> just the head-quarters, but active people available to hire locally.

Again, you're confusing the Professional Services page with the Sponsor
page.  The two serve quite different purposes.

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

---

From: Simon Riggs <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 19:10:39 +0000

> click on the logos, or use the Professional Services search.

So in order to show we have international support, we list only a few
of the countries that we operate in? Huh.

> USA; your worry that people will think that 2Q is UK-only on that basis

I guess if it's not there for actual information purposes, then it
would be OK to remove it?

As you say, if people did want to find out "service areas" they can
look up the info elsewhere.

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:23:58 -0800

> of the countries that we operate in? Huh.

Sarcasm ill becomes you.

> would be OK to remove it?

I would be opposed to removing it.  The entire sponsors page is not
there for informational purposes: it is promotional, to show people the
breadth of corporate support which the PostgreSQL project has.  Listing
the primary host countries of the various companies contributes to this,
by showing that the PostgreSQL project is not a single-country project
(as some OSS projects are).

I agree that bringing back the PostgreSQL World Map would accomplish the
same purpose, and if someone wants to code that up, pgsql-www is there
on Git for you to get started.  In the meantime, I don't agree that
anyone has demonstrated any problem with listing the sponsor's home
countries, and I feel they serve an advocacy purpose.

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

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:40:58 -0800

+1

Sincerely,

JD

---

From: Simon Riggs <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 20:12:04 +0000

>> of the countries that we operate in? Huh.

I'm pointing out that your idea is flawed by illustrating it has the
opposite effect to the one intended.

Describing that as sarcasm isn't accurate, plus it's evading the point.

> countries, and I feel they serve an advocacy purpose.

The World Map would be fine, if you're allowed multiple pins on it.

Presumably someone has checked with all of those companies to see
where they are actually officially headquartered?