Josh Berkus wrote:
> Dave,
>
>>> Also, looking back at the news just added today, is "EnterpriseDB
>>> Postgres"
>>> considered a "postgresql family product" or a commercial one? Maybe a
>>> guidance bullet on "downstream distributions"?
>>
>> It's certainly not commercial, but yes that does seem worth clarifying.
>
> Actually, I'd argue that it's commercial. That was what I had in mind
> when I drafted the rules. For one thing, like the tools SW makers, EDB
> tends to bury us under press releases and need reigning in, in a way
> that OSS projects generally don't.
I agree, but should our policy be worded in respect of that one case?
Maybe find a better way under a separate bullet point for such a product?
>> It's a bit subjective. I'd be happy with any level of content from a
>> single session up, as long as it includes details so people don't spend
>> serious money getting somewhere only to find just a single session.
>
> Well, we need to draw some line for PostgreSQL content. A 200-session
> conference with one session which covers using PHP with PostgreSQL
> alongside MySQL and DB2 really shouldn't go on the site. Maybe we
> should just re-write that as "significant PostgreSQL content" and leave
> it up to WWW what "significant" is?
I think a dedicated PostgreSQL talk is most of the time significant.
Leaving it up to www would probably work fine.
>>> Training events - should we require that they include information
>>> about the
>>> cost to attend?
>>
>> Sounds reasonable.
>
> Sure. Mind you, they usually do. We haven't had a problem with
> trainers not providing enough content, just posting too frequently.
I know, but if we have a policy, it should be complete :) It's not just
for the situation we have now, it's also for the situation we'll ahve
tomorrow.
//Magnus
