Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >There shouldn't be any tangents or general discussion on -advocacy
> >either -- that's what -general is for. A one-time incident should not
> >lead to such drastic measures. If the marketing plan is no longer
> >discussed on -advocacy, what is?
> >
> >
> I disagree whole heartedly. If you look at general, it is basically
> PostgreSQL-Support.
> It is not a place to go for general discussion about postgresql.
>
> >Incidentally, if you're not interested in off-topic discussions, don't
> >read them. Follow the threads that interest you.
> >
> >
> This is an extremely negative approach to a very positive offer for
> help. A lot
> of people don't have the time to wade through different threads. They want
> to talk about something specific and see results.
>
> Personally I haven't see any offtopic posts however, considering that this
> gentlement is probably taking time out of his money making day to donate
> a considerable service (time wise, and financially) ... We should take
> reasonable
> measures to insure that he is provided the tools he needs to provide
> that service.
>
> If the postgresql community doesn't agree, I will happily setup a list
> today for the
> discussion.
Fine, set up something privately to discuss only their issues, and ask
who want to be on the list, but it isn't for PostgreSQL "marketing", it
is for these folks alone, and they will lose the larger audience of
advocacy. They have to understand that large audience means more
off-topic posts.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
