Re: Launching PostgreSQL KB Project Mark 2 - Mailing list pgsql-www

On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 15:23, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Robert,
>
> > If we are going to discuss adding a KB to the postgresql.org sites,
> > shouldn't we discuss it right here?
>
> No, for two reasons:  (1) the KB project includes contacts for some
> corporate supporters who aren't prepared for the "attitude" common from
> some posters on this (and other) main postgresql mailing lists, and (2)
> this list is too large and diffuse to make decisions quickly on a narrowly
> defined project.

Well that's confrontational...(and hand-wavy imho)

>
> For those reasons, we're going to use a seperate mailing list to do the
> detailed planning and coordinate with this list over integration,
> infrastructure, and *broad* goals.  In other words, I'm happy to discuss
> *whether* to add the KB we build to PostgreSQL.org here, but not how to
> build it.
>

Let me put it this way, I have an interest in discussing how the kb will
be integrated into the main websites, but not much interest in
discussing how exactly its coded up. That said, it sounds like what you
need to know first is how it will be integrated into the site, and that
discussion should probably happen here first *before* you go about
coding something up and have yourselves painted into a corner.

> > And didn't we have this discussion
> > of requirements once already before Gevik looked into drupal?
>
> I reviewed that thread, which was talking strictly about recreating
> Techdocs.   The KB will be something slightly different.   Also, many of
> the present participants weren't there for that discussion.
>

They can't read the archives? You can't bullet-point it for them?

> > And what does
> > that project have to do with the kb? From what I have looked at it
> > before, it was a .net based cms software, has the direction of that
> > project changed? I'm confused.
>
> Well, according to Gevik it's a tool for building KBs.  Whether or not it
> meets our requirements, I don't know, since the requirements aren't yet
> defined.

Which is why I am confused. Should we discuss the requirements here
*first*, and then those interested in coding them up can join the
project and discuss the details there? To do otherwise would seem to add
an a priori condition that we're going to use geviks kb project as our
solution before we even have the requirements.

(Robert prepares to resign himself to joining yet another mailing list,
since it looks like this decision has already been made)

Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL