Re: [MASSMAIL]Re: PG "Users" page?

From: Gilberto Castillo
Subject: Re: [MASSMAIL]Re: PG "Users" page?
Date: ,
Msg-id: 57705.192.168.207.54.1473687914.squirrel@webmail.etecsa.cu
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: PG "Users" page?  (Dave Page)
List: pgsql-advocacy

Tree view

PG "Users" page?  (Justin Clift, )
 Re: PG "Users" page?  (Dave Page, )
  Re: PG "Users" page?  (Justin Clift, )
   Re: PG "Users" page?  (Justin Clift, )
   Re: PG "Users" page?  (Dave Page, )
    Re: [MASSMAIL]Re: PG "Users" page?  ("Gilberto Castillo", )
  Re: PG "Users" page?  (Magnus Hagander, )
   Re: PG "Users" page?  ("Jonathan S. Katz", )
    Re: PG "Users" page?  (Damien Clochard, )
     Re: PG "Users" page?  (Petr Jelinek, )
     Re: PG "Users" page?  (Justin Clift, )

>
>
>> On 11 Sep 2016, at 17:27, Justin Clift <> wrote:
>>
>> On 11 Sep 2016, at 17:14, Dave Page <> wrote:
>>>> On 11 Sep 2016, at 16:55, Justin Clift <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi us,
>>>>
>>>> Just noticed that our Featured Users page has “Sun Microsystems”
>>>> listed:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.postgresql.org/about/users/
>>>> (Under “Technology” at the bottom)
>>>>
>>>> Should we update that to say “Oracle” :D … or maybe just nuke that
>>>> entry?
>>>
>>> That page is completely unmaintained. I proposed removing it a couple
>>> of years back, but was met with strong objections coupled with a
>>> complete lack of volunteers to actually do the work to keep it up to
>>> date.
>>>
>>> I strongly feel it should be removed still - it is probably responsible
>>> for 25% of emails to webmaster@ from random companies requesting
>>> inclusion.
>>
>> Do they seem like legit requests, or more like companies not really
>> using
>> PG?
>>
>> If it seems like the 2nd, maybe we could have a policy like this?
>>
>>  “We’re happy to include any company here who actively helps out on
>>   our mailing lists, and describes in detail their PostgreSQL usage
>>   on their website.”
>>
>> That’s coming from a “lets set a high bar to meet” perspective, which
>> might help weed out nuisance requests. :)
>
> Oh, I'm sure the majority are legit. The point is that it's a 'Featured'
> user page, not just a random list of users which would be so incomplete
> and, well, random, that it would have little use.
>
> A featured list requires assessment of requests, some sort of inclusion
> criteria, and one or more people to deal with all that, make the decision
> and update the site. We're generally pretty bad at doing that sort of
> thing.
>

Uhmmm, Who have all the information? Who knows the way on how to check the
information?

This is point!!!



--
Saludos,
Gilberto Castillo
ETECSA, La Habana, Cuba




pgsql-advocacy by date:

From: "Jonathan S. Katz"
Date:
Subject: Re: PG "Users" page?
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: DRAFT 9.6 release -- is Final