Re: Company PR WAS: News links, post 'em here - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

On 09/12/2013 12:43 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:> Having both efforts >
coexist is of course perfectly fine. I just think we
> should not mix some companies private marketing with the community
> communication, even when the appeal of surfing on the annual big news
> item makes them happen at the same time. At least not when trying to
> understand how to achieve such a result in other countries.

I don't see a justification for that criticism based on anything in the
two linked articles which quote JPA.  If there's other articles, not
linked from the wiki, which you're referring to, then please link them
on this thread.  I am reading them in translation, though, so maybe I'm
not seeing something which is more of an issue in French.

Note that in the past we've had PR from EDB promoting various releases,
which are generally all over quotes from EDB staff.  And we've linked
those, sometimes with a note.  We just don't have that this year.  The
only times I've had words with EDB PR was when language in their
releases seemed to take credit for PostgreSQL features which EDB staff
had not been involved in, and that hasn't happened in quite a while.
Nor do I see that in the two Dalibo articles.

Now, if you wanted to section stuff off on the wiki, be my guest.  I
think it doesn't hurt to have notation of which articles were derived
from corporate press releases as opposed to community ones.

The only thing I could see getting upset about is if "founder of
www.postgresql.fr" is inaccurate (I don't personally know who did what
first).  That does seem like an odd thing to mention as your CV, though,
JPA; seems like "board member of PostgreSQL France" would make more sense.

On 09/13/2013 06:49 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
> For example, I have started contacting journalists who only mention a
> single company for support and suggesting that it is worth noting that many
> companies offer very good support, and providing a list of a few.

That's a good approach.  Keep in mind that reporters who, for example,
only talk about EnterpriseDB, are probably unaware that there are
multiple postgresql-supporting companies.  Our "round table" approach
for our project is not the standard (event though it should be).

> Not discussing the French here, but here in SE Asia I have seen what
> happens when one company dominates the discussion about PostgreSQL and I
> don't think it is good for our community long run.  This is to some extent
> inevitable in many parts of the world since the PostgreSQL community is
> nothing if not stealthy.  However it introduces some inevitable imbalances
> in the discussion

On the other hand, it's better than not having PostgreSQL promoted in
that country at all, which may be our other option in many of the
countries with smaller tech sectors.

> I think it is worth acknowledging that this can and will happen and that
> those of us who are regional contacts have some responsibility to ensure an
> open flow of contributions into the press process.

Yes, and that's part of the guidelines for RCs, and we've had pretty
good adherence to it, as far as I know. Note that JPA is NOT the RC.

JD Wrote:
> Yes but the comparison that JoshB brought up was not a PostgreSQL
> Company. It was just a company that uses PostgreSQL. A very different
> thing.

I don't know that that's much of a distinction.  Free PR is free PR.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com