Justin,
* Justin Clift (justin@postgresql.org) wrote:
> On 25 Apr 2016, at 04:48, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > A posting of a survey from an independent organization doesn't fall
> > under the "PostgreSQL Core News" category, as I read the policy.
>
> Hmmm. From the initial email (to -advocacy):
>
> "At the steering committee of PostgreSQL Enterprise Consortium (PGECons),
> I proposed starting the following activity. PGECons is a Japanese
> non-profit organization to promote PostgreSQL for enterprise use. The
> members include NTT, SRA OSS, Inc. (Tatsuo Ishii runs), NEC, Hitachi,
> HP, Fujitsu (my company), etc."
>
> So they're definitely already part of the greater PostgreSQL ecosystem.
I don't believe that makes it PostgreSQL Core News. Note that under
"Core News" are things like "PostgreSQL releases." A number of
companies are part of the greater PostgreSQL ecosystem, but there is a
specific independent category for that and certainly their releases of
PostgreSQL-based products don't fall under Core News.
> > Consider what could happen if we were to allow this survey- we would be
> > saying that we will allow surveys from more-or-less any organization to
> > be posted to -announce.
>
> Errr... why? We don't seem so inundated with surveys that we need to
> implement one of those (misguided) impersonal "we must treat everyone the
> same" policies.
> If some Evil Org comes along and wants us to do a survey that's
> borderline or outright crap... we'd tell them to get lost. ;)
>
> That's not the case here. :)
A lot of companies in the broader PostgreSQL eco system *do* put out
surveys and I'm sure they would love to be able to send those to
-announce. To be clear, I'm not worried about spammers or Evil Orgs but
rather the reasonable expectation from companies in the PG ecosystem
that we'd approve their surveys, if we allowed surveys from other
organizations.
I don't think it's quite so trivial to assume that all surveys would be
able to obviously be "ok" or "not ok". Further, surveys are obviously
solicitations for information from individuals, and we tend to be pretty
careful when it comes to disclosure of information regarding who are on
our various lists, for entirely reasonable privacy reasons, imv.
> Good points. Sounds like adding the extra functionality might make it
> suitable for future surveys, so they don't need to leverage google's
> infrastructure instead.
I'd certainly be happy to see that happen.
Thanks!
Stephen
