Re: Planet posting policy - Mailing list pgsql-www

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 04/17/2012 01:16 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>>
>>> For another example, my "Booze and Brogrammers" post really belonged on a
>>> "universe" instead of "main", but I was faced with a binary choice and
>>> put it on Planet.
>>
>> Luckily I have a PostgreSQL 9.1 "With a community that knows how to party"
>> poster here to remember the old Josh by.  I'm planning a round of memorial
>> shots at the Royal Oak next month.
>
> Good call.

+1 for hanging out some place and drinking until late at night; -1 for
that place being the Royal Oak.

And just to throw in some content that's not totally off-topic, I can
see the possible value of a universe feed.  I've occasionally posted
things and wondered whether they were closely enough related to
PostgreSQL to justify putting them on planet; and I've also refrained
from posting things at all due to marginal relevance.  On the other
hand, it's not entirely clear to me that two feeds would be better for
our user base.  Right now, if you scan down the Planet feed, you're
likely to find some things that are interesting to you and some that
aren't.  Odds are very good that the same would be true of a
Planet-Universe feed, so maybe we'd just be giving people two things
to look at instead of one.

It seems to me that people are already playing fairly fast and loose
with the policy.  For example:

http://lethargy.org/~jesus/writes/omnios has nothing obviously to do
with PostgreSQL whatsoever.

http://michael.otacoo.com/postgresql-2/postgres-xc-1-0beta1-released/
is about a fork of PostgreSQL.  Is it more acceptable to blog about
that than about Greenplum or PPAS because it's open source?  If so,
fine, but I don't think I've seen that spelled out anywhere.

http://pyrseas.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/database-user-interfaces-pagination/
has some connection to PostgreSQL, but only really in that it's
talking about a technology stack that has PostgreSQL buried in it
somewhere, not because there's anything actually relevant to
PostgreSQL in that particular blog post.

And that is just the front page.  In contrast, if you look through the
history of what Dave, Bruce, and I have posted on Planet, you will
find essentially no mentions of any EnterpriseDB product anywhere.  At
the end of the day, I don't really care that much what content we do
or don't allow on Planet, but seems pretty clear that EnterpriseDB and
2ndQuadrant are self-censoring out of an abundance of caution and a
desire to play by community rules, and other people aren't doing that
to the same degree.  Again, I don't have a strong opinion on what we
should or should not allow, but it would be nice if we were all on the
same page.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company