Received: from magus.postgresql.org (magus.postgresql.org [87.238.57.229]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8D311288B2F for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 14:19:04 -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 1Rselq-0007Dh-BX for pgsql-www@postgresql.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:19:04 +0000 Received: by yenm8 with SMTP id m8so693498yen.19 for ; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:18:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.182.232 with SMTP id o68mr42291929yhm.58.1328120329070; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:18:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.205.16 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 10:18:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <96e5156e36277877d18484a5148ad516@biglumber.com> <4F26DA5D.7040808@agliodbs.com> Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 19:18:48 +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: 201202/7 X-Sequence-Number: 20490 On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 17:43, Dave Page wrote: > On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Magnus Hagander wro= te: >> 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 = 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 abo= ut >>>> 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... > > Well, from a sample set of half a dozen or so community members > overall. That doesn't really tell us anything though. Agreed - that's excatly the problem. >> But we haven't heard from any of those users that it's actually there fo= r. >> >> Maybe we should post a survey on postgresql.org or something to gauge >> the *outside* interest? > > 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? ;) >>> 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... > > 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. 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. --=20 =A0Magnus Hagander =A0Me: http://www.hagander.net/ =A0Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/