Re: Tech Docs and Consultants - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

From Scott Lamb
Subject Re: Tech Docs and Consultants
Date
Msg-id 84C43D38-773E-11D7-BAD8-000393D581B8@slamb.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Tech Docs and Consultants  (Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>)
Responses Re: Tech Docs and Consultants  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Re: Tech Docs and Consultants  (Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>)
List pgsql-advocacy
On Friday, Apr 25, 2003, at 10:16 US/Central, Robert Treat wrote:

> On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 08:51, justin@postgresql.org wrote:
>> There was a private mailing list that the people who volunteered
>> subscribed to.
>
> I'd just like to put forth the opinion that the private list/discussion
> is the reason why it never got off the ground.

I have to agree with this. I just don't understand why the websites are
developed so differently from source code. In fact, I just don't really
understand how people get involved in improving the website when
there's not even a public mailing list. I've complained about problems
with the website before and offered to help fix them, in whatever other
mailing list it's spilled over to. I don't have the time to
consistently pump stuff out...but that's never a problem in source
projects. I can contribute a patch, wander off, contribute another, and
my contributions are still welcome. I'd really like to see all the
websites in the same place, with a publically accessible repository,
with commit emails, with public mailing lists. Developed like a source
code project. Can Bricolage (or whatever CMS system you're leaning
toward now) do that?

Scott


pgsql-advocacy by date:

Previous
From: Shridhar Daithankar
Date:
Subject: Re: Free advertising opportunity for PostgreSQLin the "The Open Source Reference Book 2003"
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Tech Docs and Consultants