On Friday 22 October 2004 04:22, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> Alexey Borzov wrote:
> > You mean like advocacy.postgresql.org? Where its creators lost all
> > interest in their creation after several months and the latest news [1]
> > are dated 17th Nov 2003?
>
> Advocating PostgreSQL to decision makers can be somewhat hard. I know,
> since I've been in that situation quite recently. The www.postgresql.org
> site is not at all what you'd expect a "front page" to be. You find some
> news and events on the first page but no real presentation of PostgreSQL
> as such. The advocacy.postgresql.org is much better in that respect. So
> why not make the best of two worlds?
>
> Put the content (revised) from the advocacy site on first page of the
> www site. Use the current "News" of the www site instead of the sadly
> outdated news on the advocacy site, etc. Direct all marketing efforts to
> the new www site.
>
That is sort of the plan. I'm in the process of moving the advocacy content
into the new www pages, under a section entitled "overview". Once it is
done, we can redirect advocacy.postgresql.org to this new subsection on www.
> Seems to me that using two sites (www and advocacy) just creates more
> work and benefits no one. In fact, it may actually be bad for PostgreSQL
> since the sites currently do a less then perfect job of promoting it.
>
Probably is, since the advocacy code is just too cumbersome to be maintained,
it just grows more out of date over time.
> An effort to concentre and structure the somewhat widespread information
> that's out there is propably something that will pay off greatly in the
> future.
>
Yep.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
