Re: Launching PostgreSQL KB Project Mark 2 - Mailing list pgsql-www

Wow, talk about missing a lot by just being away for one day :-) I'll
bring a ocuple of mails together into one here...


> > If we are going to discuss adding a KB to the postgresql.org sites,
> > shouldn't we discuss it right here?
>
> No, for two reasons:  (1) the KB project includes contacts
> for some corporate supporters who aren't prepared for the
> "attitude" common from some posters on this (and other) main
> postgresql mailing lists,

These are the same companies who keeps pledging to "work with the
community" all the time? Apparantly this only applies to parts of the
community, and in certain cases... Seems I have a lot of statements to
reevaluate.

If they're not willing to discuss things with the project members, can
this really be called a community project? I'm doubtful.


> > And didn't we have this discussion
> > of requirements once already before Gevik looked into drupal?
>
> I reviewed that thread, which was talking strictly about recreating
> Techdocs.   The KB will be something slightly different.
> Also, many of
> the present participants weren't there for that discussion.

So can we hear what this big difference is, that's so big that it's no
longer on-topic for a list about the website?

Also, will this KB cover what's on techdocs today, or do we need both
this and a replacement for techdocs?


> > And what does
> > that project have to do with the kb? From what I have looked at it
> > before, it was a .net based cms software, has the direction of that
> > project changed? I'm confused.
>
> Well, according to Gevik it's a tool for building KBs.
> Whether or not it meets our requirements, I don't know, since
> the requirements aren't yet defined.

Then it sounds like an extraordinary *bad* place to put the discussion.
If something other than Kennisgres is choseen, then *100%* of the other
posts on that list are going to be off-topic. (Unlike say -www, where
they would at least be about the same project) Just seems - eh, sorry
there is only one way to say this - stupid. It may not be the intentino,
but it certainly sends a message.


> More seriously, there's a 3rd reason: there are several
> people involved with the KB who have no interest in general
> WWW activity.

Equally seriously, what about all those who have no interest in
Kennisgres and are just interested in building a PostgreSQL KB?

It's not like -www is a high traffic list.


Regarding what goes where:

> Actually, I see it as:
> 1) Functionality Requirements (other list)
> 2) Requirments Related to Integration (this list)

I can certainly see the point of this. But why is this a technical list
for a *different project*?

Normally, here's how I'd see something like this done:
You have a separate list that discussed *just functionality
requirements*, producing a specification of exactly what features are
wanted, that's fine.
Once this is done, you bring in the technical people (this is the -www
list, in case that's unclear) and ask them what the best way to do this
*within current frameworks if possible* is, and what it'll tkae.


Gavin wrote:

> I mentioned this to Josh off-list but I am concerned about
> introducing yet another technology platform (.net) for PgSQL
> based sites.

Yes, I'd say this is a *huge* problem. If it really is .net - the
pgFoundry page says PHP?

Josh, in your original mail you said that there were companies willing
to put resources behind such a project. Does this mean that they will
dedicate staff time to the *continous maintaining of such a site in the
future*, or just that they're interested in getting it started?

Because frankly, we clearly don't have enough people to maintain what we
have *today* (if we did, someone wouldn't have been able to hack into
our server through a piece of software that wasn't properly updated). If
we're going to add more to it, there'd better be some committment behind
it for actual maintenance.

The website sub-project has a history of people being interested in
doing the fun parts of getting things started, and then just dumping it
before it goes into maintenance. IMNSHO, risking yet another of those is
a very bad idea.

> Can Alexy's
> framework that runs the main pgsql site work for techdocs/
> knowledge base?  If not what's wrong with it?

For techdocs replacement? Absolutely.
For a general knowledge base? Absolutely.
For this special knowledge base? I dunno, because we have not been told
what the requirements are.


While I hope that's not the actual intention, you have to realise what
kind of a message you're sending with this, Josh. And it's basically
"you guys had a discussion, came to the wrong conclusion, so we're going
to do this over here instead".

That said, I'll jump into the other thread about what to actually do in
the next mail.

//Magnus