Re: 9.5 Release press coverage - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:40:38AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I forgot to respond to this point specifically.  Yes, we are looking
> at the same thing.  I will quote the entire email up to the point
> where it mentions that that the release was made by the PostgreSQL
> community.
>
> ### BEGIN QUOTE ###
> *Performs 96% faster than v9.4 in benchmark tests*
>
> *Bedford, Mass. – Jan. 7, 2016* – EnterpriseDB <http://www.enterprisedb.com>®
> (EDB™), the leading enterprise Postgres database company, today announced
> the general availability of PostgreSQL 9.5, released by the Postgres
> community.
> ### END OF QUOTE ###
>
> Those last four words, "released by the Postgres community", are
> contained in the first complete sentence of the email.

That phrase, "released by the Postgres community", is from me.  I gave
extensive feedback to EDB on every paragraph of the EDB press release,
and all my suggestions were accepted.

I know that first sentence is odd, and it struck me as odd too when I
read it during proofreading.  The problem is that 99+% of press releases
are by companies about their products, so if you deviate from that at
the start, it causes confusion, so I decided the best approach was to
say what company was making this press announcement (EDB), but that the
code was released by the Postgres community.

I thought about this several times for several minutes but couldn't come
up with something clearer.  Should I have kept trying?  Should I have
asked on this list?  I don't know, but I do know that I got to a point
where I felt I had spent enough time on it and went to work on something
I felt was more meaningful.  Frankly, I was not happy with the
"sharding" paragraph either, but felt I had spent enough time on the
document already.

At a certain point, you just do your best and move on, particularly with
something like press release text.  (It isn't like some coding error
that is demonstrably wrong and will cause users problems.)  Also at a
certain point, if the requirements for accuracy are too high, you just
decide not to get involved and do nothing.

Yes, there were clear mistakes, like the submission and acceptance of
the pgsql-announce posting, and the journalist who misquoted Dave.  I
have been misquoted so badly at times I can't figure out what I said to
generate that idea, but it is really the same case --- either you do the
interview and accept that sometimes you will be misquoted, perhaps
badly, or you don't do interviews, or require pre-approval of articles
(which is pretty much the same as doing no interviews, unless you are a
superstar).

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Roman grave inscription                             +