Alexey Borzov wrote:
> You mean like advocacy.postgresql.org? Where its creators lost all
> interest in their creation after several months and the latest news [1]
> are dated 17th Nov 2003?
>
Advocating PostgreSQL to decision makers can be somewhat hard. I know,
since I've been in that situation quite recently. The www.postgresql.org
site is not at all what you'd expect a "front page" to be. You find some
news and events on the first page but no real presentation of PostgreSQL
as such. The advocacy.postgresql.org is much better in that respect. So
why not make the best of two worlds?
Put the content (revised) from the advocacy site on first page of the
www site. Use the current "News" of the www site instead of the sadly
outdated news on the advocacy site, etc. Direct all marketing efforts to
the new www site.
Seems to me that using two sites (www and advocacy) just creates more
work and benefits no one. In fact, it may actually be bad for PostgreSQL
since the sites currently do a less then perfect job of promoting it.
An effort to concentre and structure the somewhat widespread information
that's out there is propably something that will pay off greatly in the
future.
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
