Re: Planet posting policy - Mailing list pgsql-www

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 17:43, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:40, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think that blog post itself is a very good example of content we
>>>>> *don't* necessarily want on planet.
>>>>
>>>> See, while for me it's exactly the kind of post I think *should* be
>>>> included.  Because I'm a working consultant, I'm interested in what the
>>>> various commercial forks can do for my customers, and as a PostgreSQL
>>>> hacker I'm interested in what the various commercial tools tell us about
>>>> our users.  As long as it's not press releases.
>>>
>>> Right - and we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Planet isn't
>>> their primarily for us; it's there for the users. Some of them
>>
>> Agreed. Which is why it's interesting that those posting in favor of
>> allowing more "commercially oriented" posts are the people who either
>> have commercial products they'd consider blogging about or have
>> previous been asked to remove at least one post from the planet... At
>> least AFAICT, forgive me if I got one wrong or so, but the majority is
>> certainly that way...
>
> Well, from a sample set of half a dozen or so community members
> overall. That doesn't really tell us anything though.

Agreed - that's excatly the problem.


>> But we haven't heard from any of those users that it's actually there for.
>>
>> Maybe we should post a survey on postgresql.org or something to gauge
>> the *outside* interest?
>
> That doesn't seem unreasonable.

Josh (B), I think you are the one who normally post those - do you
have anything else scheduled up that this would conflict with? I'm
assuming not since AFAIK you still haven't tried to even use the new
interface? ;)


>>> probably only want to know about PostgreSQL itself, whilst others will
>>> certainly be interested in the entire eco-system around PostgreSQL.
>>>
>>> In just about every other aspect of what we do, we encourage input and
>>> content from commercial and OSS product vendors alike, both about
>>> their products and because they're vendors we're happy to be
>>> associated with; news, events, announcements, press quotes, the
>>> product catalogue etc. etc. Planet is the only exception to this I can
>>> think of.
>>
>> Well, we rate-limit post in other scenarios. If we do allow it on
>> planet, we should probably at least rate-limit it the same way we do
>> for news. While we could (and it would probably make sense to) apply
>> the same policy as we do for news, it would be a lot harder to
>> actually follow up on it on planet since we don't moderate the posts
>> there.
>>
>> The only technical solution I see to that that seems reasonably easy
>> to build would be to have those who want to post these more commercial
>> posts on their blog register for a special "permission" to do that,
>> and that those posts ends up being moderated in the same way we
>> moderate news today. That might work reasonably well, but it's
>> certainly a more complex process...
>
> Yeah. But that's also drifting off-topic slightly - the question in
> debate here is "do we want to relax the rules", which a number of
> people have been in favour of, and only one against if I'm counting
> correctly, and if so, how do we do so without going too far in the
> other direction? We only really need a moderation system if people
> don't follow the guidelines.

Yes, I also only count one actual "no" - but I count at least four as
basically saying "need to know what this would actually mean before I
can judge if this is a good idea"... And that's pretty much everybody
who doesn't fall into the category above of being one of the probable
*posters* of such posts.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/