On 11/1/19 11:17 AM, Justin Clift wrote: > On 2019-11-02 00:11, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: >> On 10/31/19 8:08 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >>> I imagine that this Wiki page falls afoul of some policy or other >>> around marketing proprietary software through a community channel: >>> >>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/AgensGraph >>> >>> Even if it doesn't, I don't think that we want to have this kind of >>> thing on the PostgreSQL wiki. >> >> There are wiki pages where we link to 3rd party / proprietary solutions >> that provide information as well as links back to their websites e.g. >> >> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Community_Guide_to_PostgreSQL_GUI_Tools >> >> but we don't have them at the top level. I think the URL immediately >> above is ok, as it is informational. >> >> That said, I agree with your assessment that we should not let the wiki >> be used for pure advertising purposes for proprietary products. We have >> a section of the website for that. >> >> I also found this one while looking through the recent changes: >> >> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Ecosystem:dbForge_Studio_for_PostgreSQL >> >> which looks like it was trying to subcategorize but not sure if it did, >> but likewise falls into the same camp. >> >> I would +1 for removing those pages. > > With the AgensGraph one, what's the problem with it? The page itself says > it's an OSS thing, though the further description sounds like "Open Core". > > We're not anti-commercial here (apart from abusive commercial things), > or at least we haven't been thus far.
No one said "anti-commercial" -- as I said above, there are places on the website for promoting & describing proprietary products, including in subsections of the wiki itself.
I've found the wiki is generally good for collaboration, fleshing out ideas, serving as a "catch all" for things that may be in flux (e.g. the "Drivers" page), and being generally informative about PostgreSQL, the project, and the ecosystem.
I do agree with Peter that this does not seem to be the best use of the wiki.
+1. I have no problem linking to it, or with a short description, like we have on the tools page in general. But I don't think we should be hosting complete pages about external products. They have their own wiki (as part of their github setup), and should be using that one.
