Thread: Quality of email postings
I am getting concerned about the quality of email traffic on the advocacy list. It seems postings are often not fully formed ideas and that threads frequently go on and on with few conclusions. I am thinking there has to be more leadership in keeping threads on track, and more focus in emails. Why does this matter? I have been approached by two sales people in the past few days who are subscribed to advocacy and want to help PostgreSQL, but they are wondering if the advocacy list is a useful place for them to help. If we don't add focus to the discussions, we risk losing their involvement in advocating PostgreSQL. FYI, I don't see anywhere near the same kind of unfocused discussion on the other PostgreSQL email lists. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I am getting concerned about the quality of email traffic on the
> advocacy list. It seems postings are often not fully formed ideas and
> that threads frequently go on and on with few conclusions. I am
> thinking there has to be more leadership in keeping threads on track,
> and more focus in emails.
>
> Why does this matter? I have been approached by two sales people in the
> past few days who are subscribed to advocacy and want to help
> PostgreSQL, but they are wondering if the advocacy list is a useful
> place for them to help. If we don't add focus to the discussions, we
> risk losing their involvement in advocating PostgreSQL.
>
> FYI, I don't see anywhere near the same kind of unfocused discussion on
> the other PostgreSQL email lists.
What are you actually proposing?
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGu7l9ATb/zqfZUUQRAmF9AJ9//Ic+eswWBsRYRY0mVinvSAXYUACaAm5o
ybTl0SVDn3cNMsbYLi6rCKA=
=Mz+Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I am getting concerned about the quality of email traffic on the
>> advocacy list. It seems postings are often not fully formed ideas and
>> that threads frequently go on and on with few conclusions. I am
>> thinking there has to be more leadership in keeping threads on track,
>> and more focus in emails.
I am curious about this statement. The last several threads I have been
involved in have in fact come to conclusion:
More Professional PostgreSQL Presence <- Closed, with extremely positive
ending leading to impressive presence at OSCON and LinuxWorld.
Bad EDB PR <- Resolved by willingness of EDB to being more diligent
about PR.
EDB PR on EDB Postgres <- Pretty much a low level discussion started by
Lukas, ended up with several good conclusions including agreement that
we need slightly more defined posting requirements. Also included Derek
from EDB who explained very well what there intent was, again positive
ending. Also included some good history recollection for the community.
Other recent postings:
Advocacy Wiki <- This one did get a little out of hand but was quickly
resolved in house by Dpage and Myself realizing we were cross arguing.
Positive result was provided by better permissions on wiki *and*
technical definition of requirements for sponsor page to be managed.
Alexa for PostgreSQL <- Got to give Andy credit for even trying on that
one but no flames resulted and the matter appears closed.
New Database Attack <- Debunked the problem, thread closed
>
>> Why does this matter? I have been approached by two sales people in the
>> past few days who are subscribed to advocacy and want to help
It certainly matters however keep in mind that PostgreSQL Advocacy is an
*open* list about all things adovocating PostgreSQL. That is an
extremely broad topic and there are bound to be things that don't suit
one person or another.
>> PostgreSQL, but they are wondering if the advocacy list is a useful
>> place for them to help. If we don't add focus to the discussions, we
>> risk losing their involvement in advocating PostgreSQL.
Although I think your idea is in the right place. Heck I personally told
Derek to participate, I think it is reasonable to expect that they are
going to have to suck it up a little bit. This is the Open Range man.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGu7x2ATb/zqfZUUQRAsTQAKColsvz7hCqGmhj11mcYGmX3VCwowCcCJup
KoRB0kyecBz1GLz2Tox9l64=
=VJmX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I am getting concerned about the quality of email traffic on the > > advocacy list. It seems postings are often not fully formed ideas and > > that threads frequently go on and on with few conclusions. I am > > thinking there has to be more leadership in keeping threads on track, > > and more focus in emails. > > > > Why does this matter? I have been approached by two sales people in the > > past few days who are subscribed to advocacy and want to help > > PostgreSQL, but they are wondering if the advocacy list is a useful > > place for them to help. If we don't add focus to the discussions, we > > risk losing their involvement in advocating PostgreSQL. > > > > FYI, I don't see anywhere near the same kind of unfocused discussion on > > the other PostgreSQL email lists. > > What are you actually proposing? I am suggesting that more people need to get involved directing the discussion, summarizing previous postings, keeping the discussion on topic, and moving it toward a conclusion. This happens pretty effectively on the other PostgreSQL lists. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Other recent postings: > > Advocacy Wiki <- This one did get a little out of hand but was quickly Quickly revolved? http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2007-08/threads.php#00039 > resolved in house by Dpage and Myself realizing we were cross arguing. > Positive result was provided by better permissions on wiki *and* > technical definition of requirements for sponsor page to be managed. > > Alexa for PostgreSQL <- Got to give Andy credit for even trying on that > one but no flames resulted and the matter appears closed. > > New Database Attack <- Debunked the problem, thread closed > > > > >> Why does this matter? I have been approached by two sales people in the > >> past few days who are subscribed to advocacy and want to help > > It certainly matters however keep in mind that PostgreSQL Advocacy is an > *open* list about all things advocating PostgreSQL. That is an > extremely broad topic and there are bound to be things that don't suit > one person or another. The bottom line is that even though I am interested in advocacy I am starting to skip advocacy threads because the signal to noise ratio is just too low, and I now hear other feel the same way. See my other posting about suggestions to improve things. Obviously I realize this is open source and lots of issues are going to come up, but the question is whether there is room for improvement and whether more leadership and self-policing will improve things. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Bruce Momjian wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> Other recent postings: >> >> Advocacy Wiki <- This one did get a little out of hand but was quickly > > Quickly revolved? > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2007-08/threads.php#00039 Number of postings does not equate to long resolution. It was just an active thread. >> resolved in house by Dpage and Myself realizing we were cross arguing. >> Positive result was provided by better permissions on wiki *and* >> technical definition of requirements for sponsor page to be managed. > The bottom line is that even though I am interested in advocacy I am > starting to skip advocacy threads because the signal to noise ratio is > just too low, and I now hear other feel the same way. Not to be unkind but your advocacy efforts have always been slim or at least as long as I can remember. Secondly, advocacy is the same now as it was a year ago. Just because people start using the list more doesn't make it any worse or better. > > See my other posting about suggestions to improve things. Obviously I > realize this is open source and lots of issues are going to come up, but > the question is whether there is room for improvement and whether more > leadership and self-policing will improve things. Well "leadership" in this vein is a red herring unless you want to start moderating. Self policing is something that we *all* should do better. Joshua D. Drake - -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ UNIQUE NOT NULL Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGu/wgATb/zqfZUUQRAvSpAJ0WbU9snz3XdBa/e4yXXnyKltdSkACggzhD rf28xaesyXtPmIZ0Pqb/UlU= =KNYo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>>> Why does this matter? I have been approached by two sales people in the
>>> past few days who are subscribed to advocacy and want to help
>>> PostgreSQL, but they are wondering if the advocacy list is a useful
>>> place for them to help. If we don't add focus to the discussions, we
>>> risk losing their involvement in advocating PostgreSQL.
>>>
>>> FYI, I don't see anywhere near the same kind of unfocused discussion on
>>> the other PostgreSQL email lists.
>> What are you actually proposing?
>
> I am suggesting that more people need to get involved directing the
> discussion, summarizing previous postings, keeping the discussion on
> topic, and moving it toward a conclusion.
When this is attempted it is ignored. Even by core members such as
yourself, Berkus and Page. The last two *ahem* active threads I was
involved in, I on multiple occasions tried to move threads to more
proper forums only to be ignored.
Hijacking threads is common nature, especially when dealing with
something that is ethereal. It doesn't happen on other lists because
other lists are about very specific problems or patches. Advocacy is not
such a list.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> This happens pretty effectively on the other PostgreSQL lists.
>
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGu/yoATb/zqfZUUQRAp8ZAKCfApeQ+t9VKkB3qNz8rjeeJ5bN7wCbBkTs
f2S+oYSxCsc25aVJ12b89+8=
=7JK7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > See my other posting about suggestions to improve things. Obviously I > > realize this is open source and lots of issues are going to come up, but > > the question is whether there is room for improvement and whether more > > leadership and self-policing will improve things. > > Well "leadership" in this vein is a red herring unless you want to start > moderating. Self policing is something that we *all* should do better. Leadership isn't just moderating. It is summarizing and trying to move the discussion toward a conclusion. However, you seems to think things are working fine on advocacy so I will just let things remain the same until others feel there is a problem. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Guys, For the sake of argument please consider the idea that the advocacy mail list is one of the most important mail lists thatwe've got. It's the only one that is dedicated to advocacy. Hence politics and difference of opinion is an expected,and even encouraged, outcome. I don't talk about it much on the mail list but those of you who've I've met face to face know that I live and work in anenvironment of 'real' politics i.e. I work with politicians and mid to senior level civil servants here in Ottawa. I've been impatiently waiting for this kind of explosion of opinion to happen for the past few years and now its finallyhappening. It's a good sign, there's change in the wind. And yes, we need change. Real change. I suggest you leave things as they are. Get used to it. As for the new people, such as the sales and marketing people, pleasedon't worry about them as they deal with people not code. They're adept in this kind of environment and all would dowell to watch them in action. One last comment, kind of obvious but it doesn't hurt to repeat it, be as vociferous as you like but attack the ideas andnot the person. Robert Bernier On Friday 10 August 2007 01:50, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> Hash: SHA1 > >> > >>> Why does this matter? I have been approached by two sales people in the > >>> past few days who are subscribed to advocacy and want to help > >>> PostgreSQL, but they are wondering if the advocacy list is a useful > >>> place for them to help. If we don't add focus to the discussions, we > >>> risk losing their involvement in advocating PostgreSQL. > >>> > >>> FYI, I don't see anywhere near the same kind of unfocused discussion on > >>> the other PostgreSQL email lists. > >> What are you actually proposing? > > > > I am suggesting that more people need to get involved directing the > > discussion, summarizing previous postings, keeping the discussion on > > topic, and moving it toward a conclusion. > > When this is attempted it is ignored. Even by core members such as > yourself, Berkus and Page. The last two *ahem* active threads I was > involved in, I on multiple occasions tried to move threads to more > proper forums only to be ignored. > > Hijacking threads is common nature, especially when dealing with > something that is ethereal. It doesn't happen on other lists because > other lists are about very specific problems or patches. Advocacy is not > such a list. > > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake > > > > > This happens pretty effectively on the other PostgreSQL lists. > > > >
On 8/10/07, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
The provided description of Advocacy is: "PostgreSQL vs. the rest. Promotional ideas, etc.",
and would seem to be a good place to start. Change 'description' to Objective. Restate the sentence as an Objective. Set specific, chewable, sub-objectives. Then add in the Promotional ideas to achieve each specific objective. Develop very specific task lists (similar to a Roadmap). Get volunteer(s). Then do it and attempt to measure results.
Anytime I see "etc." in any sentence, to me it means "wing it". I brought up the same general thread a few years ago. There is no Marketing Plan. Until there is, the Advocacy list will remain an exercise in "etc.". At the time I was told (+ - ), "don't go there."
Man 1: "Can you give me some directions?"
Man 2: "Sure, what's your destination?"
Man 1: "Damned if I know."
Man 2: "There's your answer.".
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > See my other posting about suggestions to improve things. Obviously I
> > realize this is open source and lots of issues are going to come up, but
> > the question is whether there is room for improvement and whether more
> > leadership and self-policing will improve things.
>
> Well "leadership" in this vein is a red herring unless you want to start
> moderating. Self policing is something that we *all* should do better.
The provided description of Advocacy is: "PostgreSQL vs. the rest. Promotional ideas, etc.",
and would seem to be a good place to start. Change 'description' to Objective. Restate the sentence as an Objective. Set specific, chewable, sub-objectives. Then add in the Promotional ideas to achieve each specific objective. Develop very specific task lists (similar to a Roadmap). Get volunteer(s). Then do it and attempt to measure results.
Anytime I see "etc." in any sentence, to me it means "wing it". I brought up the same general thread a few years ago. There is no Marketing Plan. Until there is, the Advocacy list will remain an exercise in "etc.". At the time I was told (+ - ), "don't go there."
Man 1: "Can you give me some directions?"
Man 2: "Sure, what's your destination?"
Man 1: "Damned if I know."
Man 2: "There's your answer.".
"Bruce Momjian" <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > I am getting concerned about the quality of email traffic on the > advocacy list. It seems postings are often not fully formed ideas and > that threads frequently go on and on with few conclusions. I am > thinking there has to be more leadership in keeping threads on track, > and more focus in emails. I propose that we restrict advocacy to be writable by only the www team. Everyone else can send their suggested posts to them and they can edit them and post them. That way the discussions will represent only a professional appearance and we can avoid having porn posted on the advocacy mailing list. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> See my other posting about suggestions to improve things. Obviously I
>>> realize this is open source and lots of issues are going to come up, but
>>> the question is whether there is room for improvement and whether more
>>> leadership and self-policing will improve things.
>> Well "leadership" in this vein is a red herring unless you want to start
>> moderating. Self policing is something that we *all* should do better.
>
> Leadership isn't just moderating. It is summarizing and trying to move
> the discussion toward a conclusion. However, you seems to think things
> are working fine on advocacy so I will just let things remain the same
> until others feel there is a problem.
Woah now :). I didn't say they were *fine* but I don't think that we
need some kind of oversight. I would agree that threads to get out of
hand sometimes but I would also state that our community is pretty good
at getting them back together without additional help.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGvGuiATb/zqfZUUQRArGTAJ9Q6ho3jGVMFQqUwmFP8F8e9mvReQCeKeaM
prrGLttkTbKLyZtxXqgz4/Y=
=2RZ8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mike Ellsworth wrote:
> On 8/10/07, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>>> See my other posting about suggestions to improve things. Obviously I
>>>> realize this is open source and lots of issues are going to come up,
> Anytime I see "etc." in any sentence, to me it means "wing it". I brought
> up the same general thread a few years ago. There is no Marketing Plan.
> Until there is, the Advocacy list will remain an exercise in "etc.". At the
> time I was told (+ - ), "don't go there."
>
> Man 1: "Can you give me some directions?"
> Man 2: "Sure, what's your destination?"
> Man 1: "Damned if I know."
> Man 2: "There's your answer.".
You are very, very close :). The difference is, there is more than one
driver.
Joshua D. Drkae
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGvGw5ATb/zqfZUUQRAgUUAJ9Qk2pESMbMEtWKSL6HUwGD/TNNtQCfTHFW
FBsDLfISWq8mXFRF/PJFAig=
=cwLE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Bruce Momjian" <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>
>> I am getting concerned about the quality of email traffic on the
>> advocacy list. It seems postings are often not fully formed ideas and
>> that threads frequently go on and on with few conclusions. I am
>> thinking there has to be more leadership in keeping threads on track,
>> and more focus in emails.
>
> I propose that we restrict advocacy to be writable by only the www team.
> Everyone else can send their suggested posts to them and they can edit them
> and post them. That way the discussions will represent only a professional
> appearance and we can avoid having porn posted on the advocacy mailing list.
I can only assume that this is a joke but with Greg I can never tell. :P
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGvGx0ATb/zqfZUUQRAkprAJ9DzxNOfz6XXznEPhWF7++uUbD00wCgjttv
Q/E8Z8VZN3+CY4H5UDl7k1Y=
=gt0A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes: > Gregory Stark wrote: >> "Bruce Momjian" <bruce@momjian.us> writes: >> >>> I am getting concerned about the quality of email traffic on the >>> advocacy list. It seems postings are often not fully formed ideas and >>> that threads frequently go on and on with few conclusions. I am >>> thinking there has to be more leadership in keeping threads on track, >>> and more focus in emails. >> >> I propose that we restrict advocacy to be writable by only the www team. >> Everyone else can send their suggested posts to them and they can edit them >> and post them. That way the discussions will represent only a professional >> appearance and we can avoid having porn posted on the advocacy mailing list. > > I can only assume that this is a joke but with Greg I can never tell. :P A more biting insult I've never seen :( I'll have to try harder to be more outrageous in future. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>
>> Gregory Stark wrote:
>>> "Bruce Momjian" <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>>>
>>>> I am getting concerned about the quality of email traffic on the
>>>> advocacy list. It seems postings are often not fully formed ideas and
>>>> that threads frequently go on and on with few conclusions. I am
>>>> thinking there has to be more leadership in keeping threads on track,
>>>> and more focus in emails.
>>> I propose that we restrict advocacy to be writable by only the www team.
>>> Everyone else can send their suggested posts to them and they can edit them
>>> and post them. That way the discussions will represent only a professional
>>> appearance and we can avoid having porn posted on the advocacy mailing list.
>> I can only assume that this is a joke but with Greg I can never tell. :P
>
> A more biting insult I've never seen :(
I am sorry, I really did not mean it to be an insult.
>
> I'll have to try harder to be more outrageous in future.
>
Well the way you right makes it difficult. I *thought* you were being
sarcastic but I wasn't sure.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGvHSsATb/zqfZUUQRAnO+AJwOtnevg696AawoX2ScTg/bRhNT8wCeNOGF
vH9jhpWJb7dqWQBZzAEPU3Y=
=q/cv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> I suggest you leave things as they are. Get used to it. As for the new > people, such as the sales and marketing people, please don't worry about > them as they deal with people not code. They're adept in this kind of > environment and all would do well to watch them in action. It's all really a matter of perspective. In my opinion this particular brouhaha got started as a result of a) The EnterpriseDB posting, and b) the fact that the person approving press release postings works for EnterpriseDB. Obviously the perspectives of those who work for EnterpriseDB are different than the perspectives of those who work for CMD, and those are even different than the perspectives of people like me who don't work for any consulting firm. I know, I probably just nominated myself for the "Longest DUH scentence of the year", but it's important to keep this in mind because I'm sure that people in the community, who have their own perspectives, would have similar perspectives to those working for EnterpriseDB, if they were working for EnterpriseDB. ($10 to the first person who can use "perspective" and "EnterpriseDB" more times than I did in one scentence!) Bashing someone over the head with a verbal shard, or making comments with condascending or sharp overtones doesn't help anybody, even though we're all guilty of it. Technical people like us usually are. Instead, try to put yourself in the other person's shoes and say something like, "I know with your marketing expertise it makes sense to do X, but here's where X harms the community. If you could consider doing Y instead, that would help you in these ways..." Furthermore, comments like "Face it, Momjian, you don't hold the sway you used to, nor will you ever again. Back off." If Momjian is indeed loosing sway - perhaps because he's bolted himself down - then he probably knows it and nothing is solved by rubbing his nose in it. If Momjian is still swaying with great berth (perhaps because he's in a tornado), then the utterer of such a statement appears to be a fool. The more cohesive we appear as a community, able to solve our disagreements quickly and with eloquence, the better it is for us (and the more we can laugh at things like MySQL closing their Enterprisey Source)... Cheers, -J
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes: >>> I can only assume that this is a joke but with Greg I can never tell. :P >> >> A more biting insult I've never seen :( > > I am sorry, I really did not mean it to be an insult. Sorry, "criticism" or something like that would have been more accurate. But I'm not sure how I could have made that message any more outrageous than it was... -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>
>>>> I can only assume that this is a joke but with Greg I can never tell. :P
>>> A more biting insult I've never seen :(
>> I am sorry, I really did not mean it to be an insult.
>
> Sorry, "criticism" or something like that would have been more accurate.
>
> But I'm not sure how I could have made that message any more outrageous than
> it was...
Well I thought it was outrageous ;) but it wouldn't be the first time
someone posted something outrageous and meant it ;)
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGvHtFATb/zqfZUUQRAkT7AJ90U7++EqRpolOh0e8WSXTwzKuVXwCeNwcT
SjDx99BfcBZ+B+YWeIc0ahI=
=sycX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Joshua, > Furthermore, comments like "Face it, Momjian, you don't hold the sway you > used to, nor will you ever again. Back off." If Momjian is indeed > loosing sway - perhaps because he's bolted himself down - then he probably > knows it and nothing is solved by rubbing his nose in it. If Momjian is > still swaying with great berth (perhaps because he's in a tornado), then > the utterer of such a statement appears to be a fool. Oh ... my ... gods. I nearly choked on my breakfast. Just FYI, this list is required to be at least 15% postings by people named "Josh". Since traffic has picked up, we've brought Joshua in. If this list gets more popular, we'll have to activate the Joshua Reserves. ;-) -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
All, I think that people on this list just need more concrete Advocacy things to do. The list starts to look trivial because most of the important Advocacy stuff happens off-list. So, next week, I'm dumping a list of things that need help. Get ready! -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
Gregory Stark wrote: > > "Bruce Momjian" <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > > > I am getting concerned about the quality of email traffic on the > > advocacy list. It seems postings are often not fully formed ideas and > > that threads frequently go on and on with few conclusions. I am > > thinking there has to be more leadership in keeping threads on track, > > and more focus in emails. > > I propose that we restrict advocacy to be writable by only the www team. > Everyone else can send their suggested posts to them and they can edit them > and post them. That way the discussions will represent only a professional > appearance and we can avoid having porn posted on the advocacy mailing list. That would be appropriate only if we created a new advocacy-announce email list to function this way. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
JoshuaKramer wrote:
>
> > I suggest you leave things as they are. Get used to it. As for the new
> > people, such as the sales and marketing people, please don't worry about
> > them as they deal with people not code. They're adept in this kind of
> > environment and all would do well to watch them in action.
>
> It's all really a matter of perspective. In my opinion this particular
> brouhaha got started as a result of a) The EnterpriseDB posting, and b)
> the fact that the person approving press release postings works for
> EnterpriseDB. Obviously the perspectives of those who work for
> EnterpriseDB are different than the perspectives of those who work for
> CMD, and those are even different than the perspectives of people like me
> who don't work for any consulting firm.
Just to be concrete, I think the EnterpriseDB discussions where quite
focused, mostly. The things that stick in my head from the past are
discussions about the blue Italian t-shirts, the wiki discussion, and
various other threads. Josh Berkus already brought up the bike shed
effect and I think it is a useful concept in getting focus:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-07/msg00983.php
Let me tell you what one of the sales people told me, "I start Monday
not having read email over the weekend, and I have 80 new messages, 79
are from advocacy about some trivial topic". And I have to say I feel
that way too sometimes. Now perhaps it is because I am not as
interested in advocacy as other PostgreSQL topics, which is kind of
true, but part of it is that bike shed discussions get really long and
are usually quite uninteresting. Perhaps there is no way to improve
that --- I am just asking.
In general, I do like the advocacy postings because they discuss how
PostgreSQL relates to the real world.
And way off topic, does anyone else have trouble saying "advocacy"?
Email me privately and I will post a summary. FYI, this is a good way
to condense discussion threads and might work for other topics.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Josh Berkus wrote: > Just FYI, this list is required to be at least 15% postings by people named > "Josh". Since traffic has picked up, we've brought Joshua in. I joined the list recently specifically to help meet the quota for outrageous statements from people named "Greg". To that end, I would like to point out that I completely disagree with Greg Stark's earlier suggestions. I feel that regular posting of porn to the advocacy list will help draw additional subscribers and provide a welcome break from the overly serious tone here. -- * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
josh@agliodbs.com (Josh Berkus) writes:
> I think that people on this list just need more concrete Advocacy things to
> do. The list starts to look trivial because most of the important Advocacy
> stuff happens off-list.
>
> So, next week, I'm dumping a list of things that need help. Get ready!
Pretty high on the list should be the preparation of 8.3 release
notes; even if we're not quite ready, because a few features are still
being worked on, there's a lot of material on committed items that
very likely *is* ready to be commented on.
Given that, there are a couple of us that are likely to process *that*
into some presentations on the merits of 8.3, for presentation in the
fall.
--
output = reverse("gro.mca" "@" "enworbbc")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/rdbms.html
THERE'S TOO MUCH BLOOD IN MY CAFFEINE SYSTEM!!
At 9:44a -0400 on 10 Aug 2007, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: >> Leadership isn't just moderating. It is summarizing and trying to move >> the discussion toward a conclusion. However, you seems to think things >> are working fine on advocacy so I will just let things remain the same >> until others feel there is a problem. > > Woah now :). I didn't say they were *fine* but I don't think that we > need some kind of oversight. I would agree that threads to get out of > hand sometimes but I would also state that our community is pretty good > at getting them back together without additional help. To further this thought, I get the impression from most folks (and my company is no exception) that internal squabbles happen *all the time*. It's just part-and-parcel of having (very) smart people work together with slightly different notions of "how things ought to be done." Frankly, as largely a lurker on these lists, I'm damned impressed with the speed at which y'all "make it right" on the lists, and the general good attitude involved during discussions. Mistakes are made, but in the end, to me at least, it's clear we're all on the same side, wanting to make Postgres a better product and make it more helpful for the community at large. So yes, things do get out of hand, but I like the fact you're open about it. I know not everyone shares my particular point of view, but professional is as professional does. Sometimes, professional means having heated debates, and sometimes professional makes mistakes. But like it or not, these heated debates almost /always/ come to a positive conclusion on these lists, and mean something better for the Postgres project/community. My observer's $0.02. Kevin
Here's my perspective as an EnterpriseDB employee, which I suspect will match the perspective of many other EnterpriseDB employees, as well as the perspective of many folks who work for PostgreSQL companies other than EnterpriseDB: (BTW, JoshKramer, you now owe me $10. Just send it to SPI.) Bruce is right, bikeshedding on this list list is a very big danger. Advocacy is something everyone feels they can at least talk about, unlike many other discussions on other lists. I'm not sure if this is good or bad... the upside is that we can get some ideas that otherwise wouldn't be heard. But the problem is that trying to keep up with this list can be a big burden for anyone who's not used to the lists. There's an interesting effect I've noticed... when a thread "takes off" on this list, it's basically guaranteed to hit at least 30 emails, and often within just a day or two. It's pretty rare for threads to do that on other lists. Again, I'm not sure if that's good or bad. Perhaps the best idea would be to encourage new folks to get involved in the list first, and the see how things go. If after a month (or whatever) it's still an issue, hopefully they will have more specific critiques of what's wrong so that we can focus on that. -- Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby decibel@decibel.org EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
Attachment
Bruce, > Let me tell you what one of the sales people told me, "I start Monday > not having read email over the weekend, and I have 80 new messages, 79 > are from advocacy about some trivial topic". Related to this, I created the "marketing-professionals" list for PostgreSQL, a *closed* list, specifically so that Marketing/Sales/PR people from the various PostgreSQL companies who aren't comfortable with the freewheeling nature of public PostgreSQL lists would have a place to go. That list isn't seeing much use, including by the EnterpriseDB guys. So if they feel put off by the volume, they can (and should) use that list. THey're certainly not using it right now. Then they can use an e-mail filter on this list and only reply to stuff which has the word "EnterpriseDB" in it. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
Bruce Momjian wrote: > I have been approached by two sales people in the > past few days who are subscribed to advocacy and want to help > PostgreSQL, but they are wondering if the advocacy list is a useful > place for them to help. It has also been theorized before that a lot more developers would help us if there was less chitchat and more focus on the hackers list. I say, deal with it. Either it's an open community or it's not. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
You're kidding right? This is a list for discussing advocacy, and should be open to the whole community who is interested, just as it has been. I think this list would ultimately be less volatile if EDB stopped making claims that pisses off members of the community not directly related to EDB. I appreciate EDB's contributions and efforts, but bite my tongue in joining in on the long threads because it's not productive to do so. Attempting to close off this list will ultimately fracture our community, this is not an announcement list. This is a list for members to discuss advocacy, promotion and related issues. Just because EDB is catching heat for its poor choice in marketing terms doesn't mean that this list should be closed. I respect Bruce, EDB and all the other parties who participate here, but this thread and direction flies in the face of all the efforts and accomplishments that have happened because of this list and the nature of the list. Regards, Gavin On 8/10/07, Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > "Bruce Momjian" <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > > > I am getting concerned about the quality of email traffic on the > > advocacy list. It seems postings are often not fully formed ideas and > > that threads frequently go on and on with few conclusions. I am > > thinking there has to be more leadership in keeping threads on track, > > and more focus in emails. > > I propose that we restrict advocacy to be writable by only the www team. > Everyone else can send their suggested posts to them and they can edit them > and post them. That way the discussions will represent only a professional > appearance and we can avoid having porn posted on the advocacy mailing list. > > -- > Gregory Stark > EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings >
READ THIS BEFORE YOU REPLY! > This is a list for discussing advocacy, and should be open to the > whole community who is interested, just as it has been. Please nobody respond to Gavin Roy's posting. That posting was not supposed to be approved; Gavin realized that it was a joke and tried to cancel it. However, Marc appears to have approved it before I could delete it. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
JD, > Hard to approve postings on an open list...??? He sent it from a non-subscribed address, actually. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco