On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 08:18:38PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > David Fetter wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 07:32:15PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> >>> Mike Ellsworth wrote:
> >
> >> Dave,
> >
> >> I know you mean well, but in this case, you created, at best, the
> >> appearance of a conflict of interest. Next time, please ask somebody
> >> not employed at EnterpriseDB to review such pieces.
> >
> > Actually this is probably a good idea in general. It isn't a question of
> > inappropriateness but the appearance of thus by *any* member. We have
> > quite a few prominent members employed by several prominent postgresql
> > companies.
>
> I don't necessarily disagree, and in fact did refuse to post it and
> approve it myself (hence why it came from Peter Yarrow).
>
> However, as I know I subjected it to the same rules as we apply to all
> articles, I didn't see a problem approving it myself. I've had to deal
> with these conflicts of interest for years on the website - for example,
> dealing with news relating to other admin tools, especially those from
> one particular company who like to try to flood us with postings from
> time to time.
>
> If people want to make 'no self approval of your or your companies
> items' a new moderation rule, I have no problem with that.
Good idea. We have enough people and enough diversity that making
this explicit in the moderation rules is reasonable. :)
Speaking of which, I'd love to figure out a system whereby I can
avoid (the appearance of) similar conflicts of interest in the
PostgreSQL Weekly News, as I have been in a position to announce
things I've done, are doing, etc., and have never felt comfortable
about it. I guess that's a subject for another thread, though.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666
Skype: davidfetter
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
