Thread: 9.5 Release press coverage

I haven't seen the normal press coverage thread yet, so here's a start to it:

Slashdot: http://developers.slashdot.org/story/16/01/07/1744231/postgresql-95-released

Computer Business Review:
http://www.cbronline.com/news/big-data/software/postgresql-removes-mysql-merge-barrier-to-database-migration-4771760

Times of India:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/PostgreSQL-9-5-gets-new-features-with-latest-update/articleshow/50499706.cms

Inforworld: http://www.infoworld.com/article/3020020/database/postgresql-95-bolsters-sql-and-nosql-features.html

el Reg: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/07/postgresql_95_lands/

SD Times: http://sdtimes.com/postgresql-9-5-finally-clears-migration-path-from-mysql/

I haven't listed others in languages other than English, or that just
re-posted press releases.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On 01/08/2016 06:03 AM, Dave Page wrote:
> I haven't seen the normal press coverage thread yet, so here's a start to it:
>
> Slashdot: http://developers.slashdot.org/story/16/01/07/1744231/postgresql-95-released
>
> Computer Business Review:
> http://www.cbronline.com/news/big-data/software/postgresql-removes-mysql-merge-barrier-to-database-migration-4771760

Well the above is interesting, seems EDB owns Postgres now:)

>
> Times of India:
>
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/PostgreSQL-9-5-gets-new-features-with-latest-update/articleshow/50499706.cms
>
> Inforworld: http://www.infoworld.com/article/3020020/database/postgresql-95-bolsters-sql-and-nosql-features.html
>
> el Reg: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/07/postgresql_95_lands/
>
> SD Times: http://sdtimes.com/postgresql-9-5-finally-clears-migration-path-from-mysql/
>
> I haven't listed others in languages other than English, or that just
> re-posted press releases.
>


--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

On 01/08/2016 09:08 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On 01/08/2016 06:03 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>> I haven't seen the normal press coverage thread yet, so here's a start
>> to it:
>>
>> Slashdot:
>> http://developers.slashdot.org/story/16/01/07/1744231/postgresql-95-released
>>
>>
>> Computer Business Review:
>> http://www.cbronline.com/news/big-data/software/postgresql-removes-mysql-merge-barrier-to-database-migration-4771760
>>
>
> Well the above is interesting, seems EDB owns Postgres now:)

Yeah, that's a chronic problem.  The press can't seem to get their heads
around the idea that PostgreSQL isn't owned by a single company.

--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(opinions are my own)

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:
> On 01/08/2016 06:03 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>>
>> I haven't seen the normal press coverage thread yet, so here's a start to
>> it:
>>
>> Slashdot:
>> http://developers.slashdot.org/story/16/01/07/1744231/postgresql-95-released
>>
>> Computer Business Review:
>>
>> http://www.cbronline.com/news/big-data/software/postgresql-removes-mysql-merge-barrier-to-database-migration-4771760
>
>
> Well the above is interesting, seems EDB owns Postgres now:)

I've asked to get the wording on the sub-heading adjusted. As I gave
that interview I can confidently say that at no point did we imply or
otherwise state that EDB were responsible for the release, or that we
own Postgres.

FYI, here's another article, this time from V3:
http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2441110/enterprisedb-claims-impressive-performance-gains-in-postgresql-95-database

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 09:19:56AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 01/08/2016 09:08 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> > On 01/08/2016 06:03 AM, Dave Page wrote:
> >> I haven't seen the normal press coverage thread yet, so here's a start
> >> to it:
> >>
> >> Slashdot:
> >> http://developers.slashdot.org/story/16/01/07/1744231/postgresql-95-released
> >>
> >>
> >> Computer Business Review:
> >>
http://www.cbronline.com/news/big-data/software/postgresql-removes-mysql-merge-barrier-to-database-migration-4771760
> >>
> >
> > Well the above is interesting, seems EDB owns Postgres now:)
>
> Yeah, that's a chronic problem.  The press can't seem to get their heads
> around the idea that PostgreSQL isn't owned by a single company.

They somehow mostly got the idea that Linux isn't.  How did that work?

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

On 01/08/2016 10:06 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 09:19:56AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> On 01/08/2016 09:08 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
>>> On 01/08/2016 06:03 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>>>> I haven't seen the normal press coverage thread yet, so here's a start
>>>> to it:
>>>>
>>>> Slashdot:
>>>> http://developers.slashdot.org/story/16/01/07/1744231/postgresql-95-released
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Computer Business Review:
>>>>
http://www.cbronline.com/news/big-data/software/postgresql-removes-mysql-merge-barrier-to-database-migration-4771760
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well the above is interesting, seems EDB owns Postgres now:)
>>
>> Yeah, that's a chronic problem.  The press can't seem to get their heads
>> around the idea that PostgreSQL isn't owned by a single company.
>
> They somehow mostly got the idea that Linux isn't.  How did that work?

I would say Linus sounding off at regular intervals made that plain:)

>
> Cheers,
> David.
>


--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

On 01/08/2016 10:08 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote:

>>> Yeah, that's a chronic problem.  The press can't seem to get their heads
>>> around the idea that PostgreSQL isn't owned by a single company.
>>
>> They somehow mostly got the idea that Linux isn't.  How did that work?
>
> I would say Linus sounding off at regular intervals made that plain:)

That and there is a history with Linux that PostgreSQL does not have. At
the height of Linux fever there was:

RedHat
Caldera
TurboLinux
SuSE

etc....

For PostgreSQL, there is: EDB.

The rest of us (CMD, 2Q, OmniTI, etc...) are all just service providers.
EDB is the only "distribution" of PostgreSQL.

JD




--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/  503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't
control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> The rest of us (CMD, 2Q, OmniTI, etc...) are all just service providers. EDB
> is the only "distribution" of PostgreSQL.

From a technical point of view, it certainly isn't.  There are
certainly other companies distributing PostgreSQL, in source code, in
RPM form, and maybe even in fat client installers, though I don't know
of anyone else doing that last one at the moment.

But from a PR point of view, I'm not sure how many other PostgreSQL
companies have dedicated PR departments as EnterpriseDB does.  I
suspect, although I do not know, that a journalist who gets a press
contact from PostgreSQL is much more likely to get that contact from
an EnterpriseDB staff member than an employee of any other PostgreSQL
company, because we pay multiple people to do that kind of thing.  I
can say categorically that it is the intention of EnterpriseDB
management and of the people who work in our marketing department to
promote both PostgreSQL and EnterpriseDB, not just EnterpriseDB.  I
can also say that the people who work in our marketing department, and
particularly Renee Deger with whom I have worked a good deal, are
people of integrity who sincerely intend to do the right thing not
only for EnterpriseDB but also for PostgreSQL.  That does not mean
they always get it right, but they sincerely try, and implying
otherwise is unfair.

However, EnterpriseDB's PR staff is paid by EnterpriseDB.  And that
means that, while they talk about EnterpriseDB and PostgreSQL, they
typically don't spend a lot of time talking about other PostgreSQL
companies.  Frankly, I think that's pretty fair.  I suspect that when
2ndQuadrant or Dalibo or PGExperts or CommandPrompt or OmniTI puts out
a PostgreSQL-related press release or does an interview for a trade
rag about PostgreSQL, they don't typically say "now let me tell you
about EnterpriseDB, who also contributes to the PostgreSQL community".
And that's pretty fair too. There's nothing to prevent any company
that wants from hiring just as many PR people as EnterpriseDB has, or
even more, and giving just as many interviews to the press as we do.
And I bet that, if they do, some of those interviews will come off
sounding like that company is the only PostgreSQL company, too.

In fact, here are a few other links where only a single PostgreSQL
company is mentioned, found with a quick search of Google News:

http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2347067/met-office-selects-2ndquadrant-to-help-with-data-migration-to-open-source
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ibm-unveils-linux-only-mainframe-builds-on-linux-success-300129060.html
http://www.infodsi.com/articles/153522/dalibo-propose-formations-gratuites-postgresql.html

Now, from any of those articles, you could easily conclude, if you
didn't know better, that the PostgreSQL company mentioned in the
article is the only one that exists.  It's certainly the case, in each
instance, that no other company is mentioned besides the one quoted,
and there's no disclaimer, hey, we're just one company in the
community.  I don't think any PostgreSQL company is obliged to insert
such a disclaimer into every interview.  You couldn't get the
journalists to take them anyway, certainly not in every case.  And why
should anybody even be obliged to try?

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

Le 11.01.2016 05:24, Robert Haas a écrit :
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
> wrote:
>> The rest of us (CMD, 2Q, OmniTI, etc...) are all just service
>> providers. EDB
>> is the only "distribution" of PostgreSQL.

I believe we can include Pivotal and CitusData as distributors as well,
and there's also cloud providers such as Heroku or Redshift, which do
not distribute code but they have an important role during a release
announcement (especially if it's a security alert like for 9.2.4 ) and
they have some PR firepower too

> [...]

>  I suspect that when
> 2ndQuadrant or Dalibo or PGExperts or CommandPrompt or OmniTI puts out
> a PostgreSQL-related press release or does an interview for a trade
> rag about PostgreSQL, they don't typically say "now let me tell you
> about EnterpriseDB, who also contributes to the PostgreSQL community".

Maybe there's a simple way to address the problem. Every standard Press
Release has an "About section" where you put general info about the
company itself. For instance :

--------------------------------------------------

About FooBar :
==================

FooBar is the best company in the world, blah blah blah.

Check out our shiny website : http://www.foo.bar

--------------------------------------------------

Now what we could do is ask every major PostgreSQL company to add the a
generic "About PostgreSQL" section at the end of their Press Release.
This section would be
very neutral, something like this:

--------------------------------------------------

About PostgreSQL
====================

PostgreSQL is a powerful, open source object-relational database system.
It has more than 15 years of active development and a proven
architecture that has earned it a strong reputation for reliability,
data integrity, and correctness. It is fully ACID compliant and runs on
all major operating systems. PostgreSQL developed by a large
international community composed of consulting companies, distributors,
support providers, cloud companies, DBA Freelancers and researchers.

Learn more at http://www.postgresql.org

--------------------------------------------------

The content can be discussed of course but I'm pretty sure we could
reach consensus on a
short paragraph like the one above. We could even try to involve the PR
guys from the various PostgreSQL companies.

Then we contact the 10 or 15 major PostgreSQL companies and ask them
kindly to add that generic "About PostgreSQL" paragraph to every
Postgres-related Press Release they will issue. It's not gonna hurt
their original message in any way...

Of course there's no way to enforce this... After all, any company can
write a PR and pretend to be  the PostgreSQL leader... However adding
this generic about section would be a sign that the company is being a
"good citizen" of the community

And from a journalist point of view, if you receive several press
release from different companies and all these PR share the exact same
"About PostgreSQL" section, they will read it many times and maybe with
enough exposure to this text, they may finally understand how our
community works :-)

--
Damien Clochard

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 11:24:03PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> > The rest of us (CMD, 2Q, OmniTI, etc...) are all just service providers. EDB
> > is the only "distribution" of PostgreSQL.
>
> From a technical point of view, it certainly isn't.  There are
> certainly other companies distributing PostgreSQL, in source code, in
> RPM form, and maybe even in fat client installers, though I don't know
> of anyone else doing that last one at the moment.

There's 2UDA and some others, most of the latter proprietary.

> But from a PR point of view, I'm not sure how many other PostgreSQL
> companies have dedicated PR departments as EnterpriseDB does.  I
> suspect, although I do not know, that a journalist who gets a press
> contact from PostgreSQL is much more likely to get that contact from
> an EnterpriseDB staff member than an employee of any other PostgreSQL
> company, because we pay multiple people to do that kind of thing.  I
> can say categorically that it is the intention of EnterpriseDB
> management and of the people who work in our marketing department to
> promote both PostgreSQL and EnterpriseDB, not just EnterpriseDB.  I
> can also say that the people who work in our marketing department, and
> particularly Renee Deger with whom I have worked a good deal, are
> people of integrity who sincerely intend to do the right thing not
> only for EnterpriseDB but also for PostgreSQL.  That does not mean
> they always get it right, but they sincerely try, and implying
> otherwise is unfair.

I apologize for implying this.

What I didn't think was kosher, and should have mentioned very
specifically, was sending a press release *to the PostgreSQL -announce
list* that was in essence a duplicate of the 9.5 PGDG one and then
included a large blurb about EnterpriseDB.  Had it included, as the
2UDA one did, some kind of announcement about EnterpriseDB's own new
value adds, of which I'm sure there are plenty, it would have been.

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

On 01/11/2016 05:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> The rest of us (CMD, 2Q, OmniTI, etc...) are all just service providers. EDB
>> is the only "distribution" of PostgreSQL.

...

> In fact, here are a few other links where only a single PostgreSQL
> company is mentioned, found with a quick search of Google News:
>
> http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2347067/met-office-selects-2ndquadrant-to-help-with-data-migration-to-open-source
> http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ibm-unveils-linux-only-mainframe-builds-on-linux-success-300129060.html
> http://www.infodsi.com/articles/153522/dalibo-propose-formations-gratuites-postgresql.html

The first article quite clearly states that 2ndQuadrant is part of the
PostgreSQL community, and while it does not mention other companies in
no way it suggests that 2ndQuadrant is the company responsible for
making PostgreSQL. Similarly for the second article.

I can't really judge the third one, as my French is not that good.

> Now, from any of those articles, you could easily conclude, if you
> didn't know better, that the PostgreSQL company mentioned in the
> article is the only one that exists. It's certainly the case, in
> each instance, that no other company is mentioned besides the one
> quoted, and there's no disclaimer, hey, we're just one company in
> the community. I don't think any PostgreSQL company is obliged to
> insert such a disclaimer into every interview. You couldn't get the
> journalists to take them anyway, certainly not in every case. And
> why should anybody even be obliged to try?

I think it's one thing when an article does not mention other companies
(which is perfectly understandable and I have no problem with that) and
a completely different thing when it gives the impression that there are
no other companies or that one company is responsible for the new
release. And it has nothing to do with the number of people in your PR
department.

I'm not suggesting Renee or Dave made such claims on purpose. I'd expect
authorization of the articles before publication, but I'm not familiar
with the process so maybe I'm too naive.

FWIW I'm not here to tell anyone how to do PR, but let me say that I've
received a number of WTF reactions from a number of people who happen to
understand how PostgreSQL community works, including possible future
customers. So it's probably in your interest to make the wording clear.

In any case, I don't quite see the point of posting "EDB announces 9.5"
to pgsql-announce right after the official announcement, but I do see
how that might be confusing for people outside the community.

regards

--
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Le 11.01.2016 15:17, Tomas Vondra a écrit :
> On 01/11/2016 05:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
>> wrote:
>>> The rest of us (CMD, 2Q, OmniTI, etc...) are all just service
>>> providers. EDB
>>> is the only "distribution" of PostgreSQL.
>
> ...
>
>> In fact, here are a few other links where only a single PostgreSQL
>> company is mentioned, found with a quick search of Google News:
>>
>>
http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2347067/met-office-selects-2ndquadrant-to-help-with-data-migration-to-open-source
>> http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ibm-unveils-linux-only-mainframe-builds-on-linux-success-300129060.html
>> http://www.infodsi.com/articles/153522/dalibo-propose-formations-gratuites-postgresql.html
>
> The first article quite clearly states that 2ndQuadrant is part of the
> PostgreSQL community, and while it does not mention other companies in
> no way it suggests that 2ndQuadrant is the company responsible for
> making PostgreSQL. Similarly for the second article.
>
> I can't really judge the third one, as my French is not that good.
>

FTR the third one is based on a PR that we (Dalibo) launched last year.
In this press releases basically we're saying that the PostgreSQL market
is growing so fast in France that we cannot handle this growth alone. So
we're offering free PostgreSQL trainings for freelancers & independent
contractors in order to fulfill the need of PostgreSQL DBAs in our area.

One year later, the situation is more or less the same: The market
continues to grow while we continue to train independant DBAs for free
and try to increase the size of local the PostgreSQL ecosystem.

On 01/11/2016 06:17 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:

> In any case, I don't quite see the point of posting "EDB announces 9.5"
> to pgsql-announce right after the official announcement, but I do see
> how that might be confusing for people outside the community.
>

As I understand it, the approval of PR from EDB going to -announce was
an accident.

JD


> regards
>


--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/  503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't
control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.

On 01/11/2016 04:34 AM, damien@dalibo.info wrote:
> Le 11.01.2016 05:24, Robert Haas a écrit :
>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
>> wrote:
>>> The rest of us (CMD, 2Q, OmniTI, etc...) are all just service
>>> providers. EDB
>>> is the only "distribution" of PostgreSQL.
>
> I believe we can include Pivotal and CitusData as distributors as well,
> and there's also cloud providers such as Heroku or Redshift, which do
> not distribute code but they have an important role during a release
> announcement (especially if it's a security alert like for 9.2.4 ) and
> they have some PR firepower too

Cloud providers don't count. Those are just service providers.

Citus few people outside this community have heard of (in comparison to
EDB) and Pivotal, outside of Greenplum, I don't even know what they do.
Greenplum is a fork (not saying that is bad just that it is) and not
PostgreSQL.

JD


--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/  503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't
control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.

Le 11.01.2016 16:33, Joshua D. Drake a écrit :
> On 01/11/2016 06:17 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>> In any case, I don't quite see the point of posting "EDB announces
>> 9.5"
>> to pgsql-announce right after the official announcement, but I do see
>> how that might be confusing for people outside the community.
>>
>
> As I understand it, the approval of PR from EDB going to -announce was
> an accident.
>

As a follow-up to my "About PostgreSQL section" proposition, I think it
would be a good idea to have a dedicated mailing list for such press
releases.

I agree that "EnterpriseDB Announces [...] PostgreSQL 9.5" is not
appropriate for the pgsql-announce mailing list. However it is still
interesting for "advocacy guys" to see how PostgreSQL companies speak
about PostgreSQL. Maybe I'm too naïve again but I guess we could ask
every PR teams in the community to simply post their PR on
pgsql-advocacy or maybe a new semi-private mailing list (something like
psql-press-releases@postgresql.org )

One could argue that some companies may not want to publish their PR,
but a/ by definition a press release contains information intended for
publication and b/ most PR are now published on prweb.com or
prnewswire.com anyway

The idea is to create a kind of "PR Panopticon", where "everyone watches
everyone" with the concept that when you're issuing a PR about a
postgresql-related product you're not just speaking for your company,
you're also part of a bigger community effort of promoting PostgreSQL in
general. I think creating a dedicated "PR channel" in the community
could help the various PR team understand they are also part of the
community and that they can learn and take advantage of it by being
"good citizens".

--
Damien

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 8:33 AM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote:
> What I didn't think was kosher, and should have mentioned very
> specifically, was sending a press release *to the PostgreSQL -announce
> list* that was in essence a duplicate of the 9.5 PGDG one and then
> included a large blurb about EnterpriseDB.  Had it included, as the
> 2UDA one did, some kind of announcement about EnterpriseDB's own new
> value adds, of which I'm sure there are plenty, it would have been.

I agree with you.  Let me try to clarify what I understand the
intention to be.  EnterpriseDB's marketing staff was intending to
announce the release of PostgreSQL 9.5, not of Advanced Server 9.5.
The latter hasn't been released yet; our releases always happen after
the community releases.  When Advanced Server 9.5 is released, we'll
announce that, too, and our proprietary value-adds will of course be
mentioned.  But the intention of this press release was to promote
PostgreSQL 9.5, which is why it didn't mention any proprietary stuff.
The marketing team felt that a press release from EnterpriseDB would
reach venues that the PostgreSQL community's messaging wouldn't reach,
and so the goal was to make sure that the release *of the community
product* got made known as widely as possible.

Now, obviously, given that goal, sending that to pgsql-announce made
no sense, because the community already had made its own release
announcement in that same forum.  So that was a goof of somebody on
our end to send it there, and a goof on the part of some community
approver to let it through.  Maybe that person thought it was the
Advanced Server announcement on a quick glance, but if you read what
it says that's pretty clearly not the case.

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

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> I think it's one thing when an article does not mention other companies
> (which is perfectly understandable and I have no problem with that) and a
> completely different thing when it gives the impression that there are no
> other companies or that one company is responsible for the new release. And
> it has nothing to do with the number of people in your PR department.

No, it doesn't.  But Dave already said that he didn't say at any point
what that article seems to imply.  I don't know what else to say here:
you either believe Dave is telling the truth, or you don't.

> I'm not suggesting Renee or Dave made such claims on purpose. I'd expect
> authorization of the articles before publication, but I'm not familiar with
> the process so maybe I'm too naive.

It does not work like that AT ALL.  I've only done one or two of
these, but inevitably what the journalist writes in the article is a
heavily mutilated version of what I actually said.  They certainly do
not come back and ask for my permission to publish.  I look forward
eagerly to the day when PostgreSQL gets a five-page article in the New
Yorker that some journalist spends two months researching, but what
you actually get is 15 minutes from somebody whose column covers the
entire technology space and whose goal is to maximize the ratio of
clicks obtained : time spent talking to you.  Talking to you longer
doesn't produce enough clicks to make it worthwhile.

> FWIW I'm not here to tell anyone how to do PR, but let me say that I've
> received a number of WTF reactions from a number of people who happen to
> understand how PostgreSQL community works, including possible future
> customers. So it's probably in your interest to make the wording clear.

Look, please understand: I get that.  Every time one of these things
happen I groan internally.  I want to EnterpriseDB to succeed as a
business so I can keep getting paid, but the PostgreSQL community is
full of people that I need to work with every day, every week, every
month, and having them upset with me or my employer makes my life very
significantly harder; not to mention that the articles are
embarrassing in their own right.  And *sometimes* there is actually a
thing I can point to where somebody who works here did something that
conveyed an impression that they should not have conveyed, but very
often there isn't.  I heartily agree that when an article comes out
that makes it sound like EDB is hogging all the glory, it's not only
annoying to other PostgreSQL companies, but bad for EnterpriseDB.  But
again, *we did not word that article*.  We do not get to pick what
people write about us.  Really.

For example, I just did a search for "Robert Haas PostgreSQL" on
Google News.  The most recent hit is an article that doesn't even
mention that I work for EnterpriseDB.  Not exactly a PR coup.  The
previous couple are better, and I think they're better mostly because
they were based on an email exchange rather than a voice interview.
Harder to screw up.

All of the above having been said, I've got a sneaking suspicion -
which I bet you also share - that there are probably things our
marketing department could be doing to make this kind of error less
frequent.  Unfortunately, not knowing anything about marketing, I
don't really know what those things are, and not working in that
department, I don't see all of how the sausage gets made.  All I can
tell you is that the part I see feels to me like a bunch of
well-intentioned people trying to do a reasonable thing.  I don't
believe there is malice here.  Of course, you don't have to believe
me: I might be part of the cabal.

> In any case, I don't quite see the point of posting "EDB announces 9.5" to
> pgsql-announce right after the official announcement, but I do see how that
> might be confusing for people outside the community.

Totally agreed.

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

On 01/11/2016 09:54 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

> No, it doesn't.  But Dave already said that he didn't say at any point
> what that article seems to imply.  I don't know what else to say here:
> you either believe Dave is telling the truth, or you don't.
>
>> I'm not suggesting Renee or Dave made such claims on purpose. I'd expect
>> authorization of the articles before publication, but I'm not familiar with
>> the process so maybe I'm too naive.
>
> It does not work like that AT ALL.  I've only done one or two of
> these, but inevitably what the journalist writes in the article is a
> heavily mutilated version of what I actually said.

As someone who has been on both sides of this (Interviewee and Writer),
Robert is correct.

JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/  503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't
control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Umair Shahid <umair.shahid@gmail.com> wrote:
> While such an implication is certainly not fair, when a statement like
> "Latest version from EnterpriseDB includes a focus on big data and the
> enterprise with row-level security and BRIN indexing" is the opening line of
> an article, good people who have done good work on the release but don't
> work at EDB have all the right to be upset.

You're right.  On the other hand, maybe good people who have done work
on the release but DO work at EnterpriseDB also have a right to be
upset.  Several developers from other companies got mentioned by name
in the postgresql.org release announcement, together with their
company affiliations, but neither EnterpriseDB itself nor any
EnterpriseDB employee nor any EnterpriseDB contribution are mentioned
there, yet I seem to recall doing an enormous amount of work on
PostgreSQL 9.5.  That work includes, among other things, significant
work on scalability that increases performance very significantly on
large installations, and reviewing and committing lots of patches,
including lots of patches by people who don't work here.

And it's not like EnterpriseDB is alone in not getting credit.  Tom
Lane isn't credited, and neither is Andres, but both of them are
absolutely critical community members with whom, I think it is fair to
say, the release would be much worse than it is.  Personally, I think
it is a mistake to make our release announcements as commercial as
this one clearly is.  Some developers get credit by name and company,
and others aren't mentioned at all, and in my view there's not very
much correlation between depth of contribution and inclusion in the
announcement.  And I would venture that far more people are going to
see the release announcement than are going to see that article, so in
my view that's actually a much bigger problem.  Anybody who knows the
community is going to look at that article and say "this is garbage"
and flush it, but the same people are going to look at the release
announcement and note the conspicuous absence of EnterpriseDB (and Tom
and Andres).

> The least EDB can do is get the
> article redacted and issue an apology to the community assuring them that
> this will not happen again. Explanations about how EDB pays PR and they are
> just human isn't helping ...

I object to this for a couple of reasons.  First, I've already said
that we don't have editorial control over the article and several
other prominent community members working at other PostgreSQL
companies have confirmed that this matches their own experience.  So
you're asserting that the least we should do is more than the most
that we and other community members are saying is possible.  In other
words, you seem to be asserting that the statements we made, and Josh
and J.D. supported, are knowingly false.  I have a number of vices,
and many people on this list know what some of those vices are.
However, I am not a liar.

Second, it is unreasonable for a promise that nobody will ever again
publish an article that makes EnterpriseDB sound more important than
it actually is.  That would require us to have perfect editorial
control not only over this journalist, but over all journalists.  If
you can explain how our PR department is supposed to accomplish that,
I am sure they will be all ears.  To me, it sounds like you are asking
for the impossible.

Third, you used to work at EnterpriseDB.  If, as I'm sure somebody
here will be quick to assert, this is part of a pattern of
EnterpriseDB conduct that is easily fixed by some simple action,
perhaps you should have taken that action while you were here.  If, on
the other hand, this is an isolated incident, then I really don't see
a need for anybody to fall on their sword.

Personally, I think all of this finger-pointing is both overblown and
mostly pointing in the wrong direction, for the reasons articulated
above.  I suggest we get back to the business of promoting PostgreSQL
and check whatever antagonism there may be between our respective
employers up to friendly competition.

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

On 01/11/2016 11:06 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Umair Shahid <umair.shahid@gmail.com> wrote:
>> While such an implication is certainly not fair, when a statement like
>> "Latest version from EnterpriseDB includes a focus on big data and the
>> enterprise with row-level security and BRIN indexing" is the opening line of
>> an article, good people who have done good work on the release but don't
>> work at EDB have all the right to be upset.
>
> You're right.

Half right.

Or I should say, this is completely off-topic and at this point a thread
of wasted time.

If people are upset with EDBs announcement, they should take it to EDB
not continue to beat this list to death.

The PR went out. It is over. The moderation was an accident. Humans
aren't perfect, stuff happens. Let's move on.

JD


--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://the.postgres.company/  503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
If your social views are from the Silicon Valley or The Bay, please
leave them there.

On 01/11/2016 06:54 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Tomas Vondra
> <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> I think it's one thing when an article does not mention other
>> companies (which is perfectly understandable and I have no problem
>> with that) and a completely different thing when it gives the
>> impression that there are no other companies or that one company is
>> responsible for the new release. And it has nothing to do with the
>> number of people in your PR department.
>
> No, it doesn't. But Dave already said that he didn't say at any point
> what that article seems to imply. I don't know what else to say here:
> you either believe Dave is telling the truth, or you don't.

I do trust Dave, and I have no reason no to trust him. Sorry if that was
not clear from my response.

Also, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to thoroughly respond to
everyone in this thread, and for the sincerity of your responses.

regards

--
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> I think it's one thing when an article does not mention other
>>> companies (which is perfectly understandable and I have no problem
>>> with that) and a completely different thing when it gives the
>>> impression that there are no other companies or that one company is
>>> responsible for the new release. And it has nothing to do with the
>>> number of people in your PR department.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. But Dave already said that he didn't say at any point
>> what that article seems to imply. I don't know what else to say here:
>> you either believe Dave is telling the truth, or you don't.
>
> I do trust Dave, and I have no reason no to trust him. Sorry if that was not
> clear from my response.
>
> Also, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to thoroughly respond to
> everyone in this thread, and for the sincerity of your responses.

Thanks.  I am a bit chagrined about the whole thing because, you know,
I know the people who did this work, and they are not bad people (nor
are they perfect people).  And I think that they have every right to
put out a press release about PostgreSQL 9.5.  More than that, I think
it's good that they did.  It reaches venues that the PostgreSQL
community's PR won't reach and it talks about features that the
community's press release doesn't mention, including *but not limited
to* the ones that us folks here at EnterpriseDB worked hard on.  At
the same time, it *in no way* neglects the features developed by
others, which are all mentioned, yet without in any way claiming that
EnterpriseDB developed them.  It's a good press release.  It shouldn't
have been sent to pgsql-announce, but oh well: the community didn't
have to approve it either.

Now, the article is another story.  That's embarrassing and I wish it
had come out differently.  But we didn't write that.  I think that
should be pretty clear if you compare the press release (which we did
write) to the article (which we didn't).  The press release states in
the first sentence that PostgreSQL 9.5 is "released by the Postgres
community" and mentions "EDB’s contributions to the Postgres
Community".  Why would we have gone to the trouble to write that
carefully and then intentionally put out a sloppy,
sounds-like-we're-hogging-the-glory article on the same day?  Do we
have two different teams here, one made up of thoughtful people who
understand that EDB is not the only contributor to the PostgreSQL
community, and the other of whom is composed of lunkheads?  Really, we
should give those lunkheads a stern talking-to.  But it's not that.
It's just ... we didn't write that article.

Anyway, Tomas, I really appreciate your taking the time to mention
that you appreciate my replies.  I don't want to turn this into a
mutual appreciation society, but, you know, I write these replies (and
my posts to pgsql-hackers) hoping to clarify how I'm thinking about
things, and it's sometimes not very clear whether anything that I've
written has been heard.  Especially on contentious issues, it's nice
to know when something I write helps.  So thanks.

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

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Umair Shahid <umair.shahid@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> With the explanations you gave, I understand better that this can not be
> guaranteed. I am sure, however, that there are steps that EDB can take to
> try and avoid such stuff. As an example, when talking to journalists, they
> can make sure the interviewee is very clear about PostgreSQL being a
> community effort, rather than an EDB product.
...
..
> Now that’s getting personal, but that’s ok. Yes, I used to work at EDB ... 5
> years ago ... when this wasn't a problem. The posturing was very different
> back then, community members on EDB's payroll were constantly and actively
> advising the team on what the community might get offended by and what type
> of statements to avoid. Is that still happening?

Yes - I was and remain one of the primary people doing that... and
don't forget, in this case *I* was the interviewee - this wasn't
someone with no community involvement that had the call.

I always open these calls with an introduction to the community, how
it's structured and how EDB is one of a number of companies that
contributes - and that's something I try to be very clear about, to
the extent that I've commented in numerous interviews how it's one of
the major strengths of PostgreSQL that as both companies and
individuals we can collaborate on code whilst competing in business.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Folks,

Three companies offered PR help with the release: EDB, Equinux, and
Dalibo.  I know that other companies have paid PR staff, some of them
quite good ones.  So while I'm down with giving advice to the EDB folks
on being community-friendly, I'm really not happy with the amount of
shit they get from various members of the community every release,
especially from employees of companies who could have offered PR help
and didn't.

Renee did a terrific job getting the 9.5 release in front of analysts
and publications who don't return my calls; I would say that 60% of our
english-language press coverage is due to her team's efforts.

Yes, it's worth discussing "how can we do better next time".  But
EnterpriseDB is, as a company, a big contributor to the PostgreSQL
project, so please let's treat the EDB folks as contributors and stop
with the shit-fests.

--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(opinions are my own)

On 01/12/2016 06:58 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Three companies offered PR help with the release: EDB, Equinux, and
> Dalibo.  I know that other companies have paid PR staff, some of them
> quite good ones.  So while I'm down with giving advice to the EDB folks
> on being community-friendly, I'm really not happy with the amount of
> shit they get from various members of the community every release,
> especially from employees of companies who could have offered PR help
> and didn't.
>
> Renee did a terrific job getting the 9.5 release in front of analysts
> and publications who don't return my calls; I would say that 60% of our
> english-language press coverage is due to her team's efforts.
>
> Yes, it's worth discussing "how can we do better next time".  But
> EnterpriseDB is, as a company, a big contributor to the PostgreSQL
> project, so please let's treat the EDB folks as contributors and stop
> with the shit-fests.

I do not see that. I see some legitimate questions and some thoughtful
and insightful replies that, to my satisfaction at least, addressed
those questions. Basically the way a community is supposed to work.



--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Umair Shahid <umair.shahid@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks, Robert, for addressing all concerns raised on this forum
> point-by-point. It helps tremendously to gain a better understanding.

Good to hear.

> Your concern here is as valid as the concern I have, I fully support you on
> this. Perhaps, as you have suggested yourself, organizations should not be
> mentioned at all in press releases from the community.

I hope to see more discussion of this point.

> What I did mean was that besides the lengthy explanations (which do help,
> btw!), I would also like to know what efforts EDB is putting in to try and
> not have a repeat of this. It would be helpful, as an example, to know if
> you have communicated this discussion & concerns internally.

First, Renee reads this list regularly.  She may respond to this
thread in due course, but I think our marketing team is not quite used
to the lightning-fast speed at which community business is sometimes
conducted.  Please be assured, however, that whether you see a written
response or not, the message is being received loud and clear in
Bedford.  I don't need to tell them about this thread: they know.  I
often hear about pgsql-advocacy threads critical of EnterpriseDB
through the grapevine before I see them in my own email.

Second, whenever I have concerns, I let the marketing team know about
them.  I know Bruce does as well.  EnterpriseDB is a big enough
company that I'm not aware of every conversation that everyone has
with marketing, but I suspect there are also other people who are in
touch with them as things come up.

Third, marketing reaches out to me from time to time even if I don't
contact them, to solicit my opinions on how the community will likely
react to A, B, or C.  And I always make liaising with them a priority
among my various duties.

> With the explanations you gave, I understand better that this can not be
> guaranteed. I am sure, however, that there are steps that EDB can take to
> try and avoid such stuff. As an example, when talking to journalists, they
> can make sure the interviewee is very clear about PostgreSQL being a
> community effort, rather than an EDB product.

As has already been said, this is standard policy here.

> Now that’s getting personal, but that’s ok. Yes, I used to work at EDB ... 5
> years ago ... when this wasn't a problem. The posturing was very different
> back then, community members on EDB's payroll were constantly and actively
> advising the team on what the community might get offended by and what type
> of statements to avoid. Is that still happening?

Yes.

Also, BTW, it looks to me as though the article has been at least
partially corrected since we've been arguing about this.  It's a real
shame that this thread has been completely derailed into a discussion
of the one article that got it wrong instead of talking about the
original purpose, which was the press coverage this release has
gratifyingly received.

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

On 01/12/2016 06:58 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Folks,

> Yes, it's worth discussing "how can we do better next time".  But
> EnterpriseDB is, as a company, a big contributor to the PostgreSQL
> project, so please let's treat the EDB folks as contributors and stop
> with the shit-fests.

JB,

This was completely inappropriate. First, everyone is treating them like
contributors. That is why they are getting so much attention. If they
weren't such well known contributors, nobody would care (as much).

JD


>


--
Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/
                      +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.

On 01/12/2016 07:45 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 01/12/2016 06:58 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Folks,
>
>> Yes, it's worth discussing "how can we do better next time".  But
>> EnterpriseDB is, as a company, a big contributor to the PostgreSQL
>> project, so please let's treat the EDB folks as contributors and stop
>> with the shit-fests.
>
> JB,
>
> This was completely inappropriate. First, everyone is treating them like
> contributors. That is why they are getting so much attention. If they
> weren't such well known contributors, nobody would care (as much).

Not inappropriate, just someone venting, you know about that.

>
> JD
>
>
>>
>
>


--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

On 01/12/2016 08:01 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On 01/12/2016 07:45 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> On 01/12/2016 06:58 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> Folks,
>>
>>> Yes, it's worth discussing "how can we do better next time".  But
>>> EnterpriseDB is, as a company, a big contributor to the PostgreSQL
>>> project, so please let's treat the EDB folks as contributors and stop
>>> with the shit-fests.
>>
>> JB,
>>
>> This was completely inappropriate. First, everyone is treating them like
>> contributors. That is why they are getting so much attention. If they
>> weren't such well known contributors, nobody would care (as much).
>
> Not inappropriate, just someone venting, you know about that.

O.k. take the first sentence out. The rest is still valid.

JD

>
>>
>> JD
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


--
Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/
                      +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160


Josh Berkus wrote:
> Yes, it's worth discussing "how can we do better next time".  But
> EnterpriseDB is, as a company, a big contributor to the PostgreSQL
> project, so please let's treat the EDB folks as contributors and stop
> with the shit-fests.

Seriously? You think this rational, collegiate discussion is a "shit-fest"?
I'd hate to see what happens when you run into a real shit-fest.

It's clear everyone is treating EDB folks as contributors. But they get
no free lunch from us. And, as Robert pointed out, part of this is on EDB,
but part is on us - pgsql-announce is a fully moderated list, which frankly
seems to have some approve-trigger-happy mods, as things get approved which
should not far too often, IMHO. We've asked EDB what they are going to
do to prevent this from happening again, but what are we going to do
on our end?

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201601121111
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEAREDAAYFAlaVJlYACgkQvJuQZxSWSshuSACgupL9ZxsC0VwcMp+JgtELXDis
kiMAn2LDEmWY/7R0Qm0PWNURYSDkdQIu
=dEpI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 01/12/2016 10:45 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 01/12/2016 06:58 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Folks,
>
>> Yes, it's worth discussing "how can we do better next time".  But
>> EnterpriseDB is, as a company, a big contributor to the PostgreSQL
>> project, so please let's treat the EDB folks as contributors and stop
>> with the shit-fests.
>
> JB,
>
> This was completely inappropriate. First, everyone is treating them like
> contributors. That is why they are getting so much attention. If they
> weren't such well known contributors, nobody would care (as much).

I don't feel that it was.  And as someone who is travelling and read the
thread all at once, what I got out of it is "let's talk about what EDB
did wrong".  If we're going to talk about what EDB PR staff did wrong,
let's please also talk about what they did right.  Otherwise they have
no incentive to help us again.

You're right that this "let's emphasize the negative" approach is one we
also take with other contributors.  But that's a problem, not something
to be championed.

The -announce certainly should not have gone out, and that's two
failures, one of moderation and one of submission.

--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(opinions are my own)

On 01/12/2016 08:47 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:

> I don't feel that it was.  And as someone who is travelling and read the
> thread all at once, what I got out of it is "let's talk about what EDB
> did wrong".  If we're going to talk about what EDB PR staff did wrong,
> let's please also talk about what they did right.  Otherwise they have
> no incentive to help us again.

As I mentioned in another thread, it is questionable about whether it is
actually a help from EDB. That said, I do understand where you are
coming from and that discussion is for another thread.

>
> You're right that this "let's emphasize the negative" approach is one we
> also take with other contributors.  But that's a problem, not something
> to be championed.
>

I am not suggesting that we be negative, it is always better to be
constructive.


> The -announce certainly should not have gone out, and that's two
> failures, one of moderation and one of submission.
>

Yes and I think the underlying issue that people may think is that this
is certainly not the first time EDB has made this error.

That said, as I mentioned in previous post, this thread should die. It
has long lost any usefulness.

Sincerely,

JD


--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/  503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't
control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> We have typically not mentioned the individual developers either in the
> press release, and I think that's a good practice. They are credited in the
> release notes where we have space to credit *everybody*, and do so in a fair
> way. So I think we should go back to not doing that.

+1.

> As for the EDB press release, the *biggest* problem was that it was sent to
> -announce and approved there. Those were two mistakes in a row. Mistakes
> happen, let's just try not to do that again.

+1.  And hopefully next time EnterpriseDB won't send it there, either,
but if they do, well, that's what the reject button is for.

> The wording itself wasn't very good, with the way the "announced" verb was
> used. We certainly can't prevent them from doing that, but we should forward
> that feedback and ask that they be more careful about that wording the next
> time.

I'd really like to understand what wording would be found acceptable
to the community.  I think it's natural for a press release put out by
a company to begin with the name of that company.  The press release
says in the first sentence that the release was made by the PostgreSQL
community.   Simon seems to think that's unacceptable, but I can say
in all honesty that if 2ndQuadrant put out a similar press release
with EnterpriseDB replaced by 2ndQuadrant, the quotes from
EnterpriseDB employees replaced by quotes from 2ndQuadrant employees,
and the discussion of features EnterpriseDB cares most about replaced
by features 2ndQuadrant cares most about, I'd have no issue with that.
To be honest, I'd be sort of surprised if 2ndQuadrant ever put out ANY
public statement that made as much mention an EnterpriseDB-developed
feature as that press release made of BRIN.  In that sense, I thought
that press release was remarkably fair.  If somebody had asked me
about that press release before it had been put out, I would have
recommended against sending it to pgsql-announce, but I would have had
no concerns about using it anywhere else.  I still don't really
understand what the problem is.  Can you be more specific?

If the community's position is that the only acceptable thing for
EnterpriseDB to promote is the community press release that doesn't
mention EnterpriseDB or any EnterpriseDB staff or any
EnterpriseDB-contributed feature, and that it must promote that only
without using the word EnterpriseDB, I think that's, well, I guess I
think that's ridiculous.  It's reasonable to expect that EnterpriseDB
won't say that we are the one company behind PostgreSQL, and the ONE
article that said that has now been quite thoroughly corrected.  It's
not reasonable to say that EnterpriseDB won't talk about EnterpriseDB.
I fully expect other people to talk about their own companies.

Generally, I'd say that EnterpriseDB generates a regular stream of
press releases, and the community doesn't get veto power over those.
The community, of course, has every right to decide which of those
announcements it will promote using its own channels (pgsql-announce,
for example).  But it has no right to control EDB's access to the
media.  If EnterpriseDB is making false statements, then it is
entirely right for people to be upset about that, but our press
release does not do that.  I have read that press release several
times from top to bottom and I do not see a single statement in there
that is false or claims credit for anybody else's work.  Period.

> If EDB alone generated 60% of the readers (I can't comment on whether that
> is true or not), then I think we can say that the rest of the community PR
> effort failed. The fact that they are the ones that got into papers that
> wanted to interview someone in person and called them makes a round of sense
> - the community doesn't really offer that up (other than a list of phone
> numbers -- but that's pull rather than push). But if their written press
> release hit that many more target than *our* written press release did, then
> our written press release failed.

I think this is the right way to look at it.  Personally, I don't see
much evidence that the 60% figure is in any way accurate.  Consider
the six links in the blog entry I put up last night:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/3020020/database/postgresql-95-bolsters-sql-and-nosql-features.html
- Doesn't even mention EnterpriseDB.
http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2441110/enterprisedb-claims-impressive-performance-gains-in-postgresql-95-database
- Talks a lot about EnterpriseDB, but seems pretty clear about the
distinction between EnterpriseDB and PostgreSQL.
http://www.fiercecio.com/story/postgresql-95-eyes-mysql-users-new-web-mobile-friendly-features/2016-01-08
- Doesn't even mention EnterpriseDB
http://thenewstack.io/postgresql-9-5-geared-liberate-enterprises-data-warehouse/
- Beginning is only about PostgreSQL, EnterpriseDB mentioned down a
few paragraphs, distinction seems clear
http://sdtimes.com/postgresql-9-5-finally-clears-migration-path-from-mysql/
- Doesn't even mention EnterpriseDB.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/07/postgresql_95_lands/ - Doesn't
even mention EnterpriseDB

So, here we have two-thirds of the press not even mentioning
EnterpriseDB, not 60% of the press mentioning only EnterpriseDB.  Now
maybe that sample isn't representative, but I picked those links
mostly at random from a list given to me by Renee.  I hope she doesn't
get in trouble for getting EnterpriseDB's name into only 30% of our PR
at the same time we're getting based on this mailing list for
dominating the PR.  I don't believe EnterpriseDB needs to apologize
for wanting to be mentioned in the PostgreSQL 9.5 press.

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

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> When you say "our" press coverage, presumably you mean the Postgres
> Community? How can it be "our" press coverage when we are not mentioned
> anywhere? What you mean is that only 40% of the press coverage about
> Postgres 9.5 mentions the people that produced the product. Wow, that has to
> be some kind of international record for poor PR.

I don't think this is true at all.  I don't think it's remotely fair.
There was ONE article, since corrected, that made it sound that way.
It's been further corrected since yesterday, BTW, and I can't see what
anyone could remotely fairly complain about in there at this point.
The EDB press releases says *in the first sentence* that the release
was made by the Postgres Community.

> That obscures the truth and is unhelpful to the PostgreSQL Community, since
> we gain strength from acting together.

Yes, we should definitely all avoid making it sound like our own
employers are the whole community.  Like, if somebody stood up and
gave a talk called "PostgreSQL Core Roadmap" that spent 90% of its
time talking about the work their own employer was doing, I think that
would obscure the truth and be unhelpful to the PostgreSQL community.
But, you know, it's unreasonable to expect that everybody here is
going to agree with everybody else here does to promote their
business, and I'd like to think we could be a little tolerant of cases
where somebody else's view of what does or does not exactly match up
to our own.

> If we are to consider EDB's contributions, would it not also be reasonable
> to consider other people's contributions as well, since those have been
> obscured?

Of course, but let's not ignore the fact that the official release
announcement does not mention EnterpriseDB, or any EnterpriseDB staff,
or any EnterpriseDB-contributed feature.  I'm not going accept a set
of strictures that don't permit my employer to promote itself.  Every
other company in the PostgreSQL community does that, and there's no
reason we shouldn't do it, too.  More than that, there's no reason we
shouldn't do the best darn job of it that we can.  We should of course
not lie or misrepresent when we do that, but we have not.  Our press
release seems, at least to me, to clearly distinguish between
PostgreSQL and the community.  If that press release got picked up
widely, good.  That's why we write press releases.

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

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> I'd really like to understand what wording would be found acceptable
>> to the community.  I think it's natural for a press release put out by
>> a company to begin with the name of that company.  The press release
>> says in the first sentence that the release was made by the PostgreSQL
>> community.
>
> The first sentence says that EDB is announcing the PostgreSQL 9.5 release,
> which it has no right to do.
>
> Presumably if 2ndQuadrant makes press announcements about the next version
> of PPAS, offering people to contact 2ndQuadrant for more information, I
> would expect to receive a strongly worded letter. The objection probably
> wouldn't focus on which verbs were acceptable, it would be an objection
> based upon improper use of a trademark, which is exactly what is happening
> here.

As far as I know, and IANAL, everything you just said is wrong.  If it
were actually illegal to use somebody else's trademark in a press
release you put out, business communication would become very
difficult.  We talk about how we've added features to PPAS that
provide compatibility with Oracle, and it is my understanding that
this is quite legal, even though "Oracle" is not a trademark of
EnterpriseDB.  I believe that if 2ndQuadrant wants to support PPAS,
there is no legal way for EnterpriseDB to stop 2ndQuadrant from
offering that service.  I also believe that 2ndQuadrant is legally,
morally, and in every other way entitled to announce that it will be
providing services around PPAS, as long as you don't claim you created
it.  Heck, I'm not even sure EnterpriseDB would be opposed to the
creation of such a service, since the customer would still have to pay
the license fee.  If 2ndQuadrant enters the business of helping PPAS
users avoid paying their license fees, and EnterpriseDB's legal team
finds out about it, then, yes, you will be getting a strongly worded
letter about that.  But that will not be about trademark.

Now, when it comes to PostgreSQL, EnterpriseDB not only helped create
it, but also distributes the software, employs core team members and
committers, sponsors conferences, and in many other ways contributes
to the PostgreSQL community.  We have just as much right to use that
word as anybody else.  It would be extraordinary if, despite
contributing so much to the PostgreSQL community and to the PostgreSQL
9.5 release, EnterpriseDB were not allowed to talk about that software
release.

>> If EnterpriseDB is making false statements, then it is
>> entirely right for people to be upset about that, but our press
>> release does not do that.  I have read that press release several
>> times from top to bottom and I do not see a single statement in there
>> that is false or claims credit for anybody else's work.  Period.
>
> Everything is implied, but overall it is very clearly misleading people to
> think that the PostgreSQL brand is controlled by EDB.
>
> I oppose that viewpoint, from any company that tries to suggest it.

I think every single PostgreSQL company tries to suggest that it is
the best PostgreSQL company with whom to do business.  I would expect
nothing else.

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

On 01/13/2016 08:56 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I don't think this is true at all.  I don't think it's remotely fair.
> There was ONE article, since corrected, that made it sound that way.
> It's been further corrected since yesterday, BTW, and I can't see what
> anyone could remotely fairly complain about in there at this point.
> The EDB press releases says *in the first sentence* that the release
> was made by the Postgres Community.

FWIW, I reviewed this release before it went out, and that was one of
the things I checked for.

--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(opinions are my own)

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> I'd really like to understand what wording would be found acceptable
>> to the community.  I think it's natural for a press release put out by
>
> Specifically "today announced the general availability of PostgreSQL 9.5,
> released by the Postgres community". The subject is actually better and is
> what should've used in that place as well ("EnterpriseDB Announces Improved
> Database Integration, Scalability and Data Analytics Productivity with Newly
> Released PostgreSQL 9.5" -- because that's actually what the announcement is
> about).
>
> But the point is that it's not EnterpriseDB that announces the availability
> of PostgreSQL 9.5 -- that's the PostgreSQL community.

Well, I think that the PostgreSQL community put out an announcement
and EnterpriseDB also put out an announcement and promoted both the
community's announcement and its own.  I think other companies or
organizations could also put out their own PR about the release if
they wish.  You and Simon seem to be taking the position that the
release announcement from the community must be the only release
announcement, but I'm not sure that's right.

> and
> "To learn about PostgreSQL 9.5, email sales(at)enterprisedb(dot)com"
>
> I'd venture to say that your sales people aren't really the best people to
> talk about PostgreSQL 9.5  :P They are probably the right people to talk
> about EDB's offerings around PostgreSQL 9.5 of course.

Well, perhaps so.  But I think people will understand from the nature
of the email address that you should use that email address for
support, services, and complementary products, rather than technical
information.  It's not unclear in any real sense.

> Overall I stand by thinking that it's certainly not perfect (nothing ever
> is), but the majority of it is perfectly fine. It just opens and closes on
> the slightly wrong note.

Fair enough.  But there's a heck of lot of criticism of EnterpriseDB
on this email thread for something that is not perfect but perhaps
strikes a wrong note someplace.  Would any other company that tried to
promote the release have come in for equally tight scrutiny?  I bet
somebody will say yes, but I'm not sure I believe it.  Dave said in
email number four on this thread that we didn't say what the CBR
article was implied, and that we had asked for a correction.  Instead
of accepting that at face value, people continued to demand apologies,
inquire whether we habitually ask for corrections, and challenge good
faith for another ten, twenty, thirty emails.  This then got conflated
- IMHO unfairly - with complaints about a press release which, as has
been said many times already, was only approved for pgsql-announce by
accident, and which everybody except maybe Simon seems to agree didn't
really do anything all that bad.

I'm obviously biased about this because I work at EnterpriseDB and
have been doing so for about six years.  I know this is not a perfect
company.  But I don't see much evidence that it is any less perfect
than any other company in this space, and better than some, and better
than what it has sometimes been in the past.  And yet I see more
threads on these mailing lists critical of EnterpriseDB for doing this
thing or that thing than I ever do for any other company.  Does the
community have the right to challenge EnterpriseDB when it does
something wrong?  Sure.  But it seems to me that the scrutiny we get
is delivered with a vigor not directed at any other player.  There's a
core team member on this thread who says that (1) he asked
EnterpriseDB for help with PR, (2) he was happy with the help he got,
and (3) he knew what help he was getting and was still happy with it.
And yet, somehow, we're not sure whether perhaps EnterpriseDB ought to
be severely punished in either a court of law or at least the court of
public opinion.  Really?  Will a full-body cavity search be required,
too, or might there be a point at which the questions have been asked
and answered?

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

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> a company to begin with the name of that company.  The press release
>> says in the first sentence that the release was made by the PostgreSQL
>> community.   Simon seems to think that's unacceptable, but I can say
>
> Are we looking at the same thing? In mine it says that in the first sentence
> of the third paragraph, not the first sentence (4th paragraph if you include
> the tagline). I'm looking at
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOW=PeL3KBBOFDhQBR2GCw-s2afEw8iWy+dF38PaiYGa4=VrVQ@mail.gmail.com.

I forgot to respond to this point specifically.  Yes, we are looking
at the same thing.  I will quote the entire email up to the point
where it mentions that that the release was made by the PostgreSQL
community.

### BEGIN QUOTE ###
*Performs 96% faster than v9.4 in benchmark tests*

*Bedford, Mass. – Jan. 7, 2016* – EnterpriseDB <http://www.enterprisedb.com>®
(EDB™), the leading enterprise Postgres database company, today announced
the general availability of PostgreSQL 9.5, released by the Postgres
community.
### END OF QUOTE ###

Those last four words, "released by the Postgres community", are
contained in the first complete sentence of the email.

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

On 01/13/2016 06:25 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

Well, so much for letting this thread die. Let's rock.

>> The first sentence says that EDB is announcing the PostgreSQL 9.5 release,
>> which it has no right to do.
>>
>> Presumably if 2ndQuadrant makes press announcements about the next version
>> of PPAS, offering people to contact 2ndQuadrant for more information, I
>> would expect to receive a strongly worded letter. The objection probably
>> wouldn't focus on which verbs were acceptable, it would be an objection
>> based upon improper use of a trademark, which is exactly what is happening
>> here.
>
> As far as I know, and IANAL, everything you just said is wrong.

The trademark holder can state how and when one can use the Trademark.
Simon is wrong in that the PGDG trademark specifically states that the
EDB use is acceptable:

https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy

>>> If EnterpriseDB is making false statements, then it is
>>> entirely right for people to be upset about that, but our press
>>> release does not do that.  I have read that press release several

This is a subtle problem. EDBs marketing people are smart.

"EnterpriseDB® (EDB™), the leading enterprise Postgres database company,
today announced the general availability of PostgreSQL 9.5, released by
the Postgres community."

It isn't false but it isn't sincere and I think that is where the issue
is coming from.

>>
>> Everything is implied, but overall it is very clearly misleading people to
>> think that the PostgreSQL brand is controlled by EDB.
>>
>> I oppose that viewpoint, from any company that tries to suggest it.

Robert, it isn't just companies. There is a pretty good general view
amongst the wider population that EDB == Postgres. I have even had
people ask if "I" work for EDB. I stained a perfectly good shirt with
coffee when asked that. From a marketing perspective I applaud the
expertise. From an integrity standpoint, EDB shakes on a thin stick when
it comes to this stuff.

>
> I think every single PostgreSQL company tries to suggest that it is
> the best PostgreSQL company with whom to do business.  I would expect
> nothing else.
>

I don't think anybody argues that.

Sincerely,

JD


--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/  503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't
control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>>>> If EnterpriseDB is making false statements, then it is
>>>> entirely right for people to be upset about that, but our press
>>>> release does not do that.  I have read that press release several
>
> This is a subtle problem. EDBs marketing people are smart.

Worse still: they are getting smarter all the time, because we've
hired some really great people.  But I tend to view smart people as a
good thing, not a bad one, even when they are working for some
PostgreSQL company other than EnterpriseDB.  I don't think I'd enjoy
working in this community very much if it only had dumb people.  I
don't think I'd enjoy working at EnterpriseDB very much if it only had
dumb people, either.

> "EnterpriseDB® (EDB™), the leading enterprise Postgres database company,
> today announced the general availability of PostgreSQL 9.5, released by the
> Postgres community."
>
> It isn't false but it isn't sincere and I think that is where the issue is
> coming from.

I don't think it's insincere, and I think my knowledge of the state of
mind of our marketing department is at least as good as yours.  I have
every reason to believe that they sincerely intended to promote the
PostgreSQL release.

> Robert, it isn't just companies. There is a pretty good general view amongst
> the wider population that EDB == Postgres. I have even had people ask if "I"
> work for EDB. I stained a perfectly good shirt with coffee when asked that.
> From a marketing perspective I applaud the expertise. From an integrity
> standpoint, EDB shakes on a thin stick when it comes to this stuff.

I don't really understand this.  Where exactly is the lack of
integrity?  You're saying that our marketing department is doing a
good job, but if they did a bad job they'd have more integrity?  If
EnterpriseDB claims credit for the whole work of the PostgreSQL
community, I agree that's wrong and bad.  I agree that there are
instances where that has happened either through intentional action or
by inadvertency.  There was one such instance in the CBR article
related to publicity around this release.  That was inadvertent, and
it has now been corrected, a process that began even before the
community began its vigorous demands on this thread. But if
EnterpriseDB correctly portrays itself as a leading member of the
PostgreSQL community and people hear more about EnterpriseDB than they
do about other companies, that just means our marketing is working.
EnterpriseDB has every right to do more marketing than other
PostgreSQL companies are currently doing if it so wishes, and also
every right to do less or none at all if its priorities change.  Other
companies have the same rights.  Nobody has a right to have as much
name recognition as somebody else has just cuz.

To be honest, I'm not sure the disparity in name recognition is
anywhere near as large as you seem to be portraying here.  I think
most people who care about PostgreSQL to any degree know that there
are many PostgreSQL companies and who some of the leading ones are.
It is possible that a press release from EnterpriseDB might cause
somebody who doesn't yet know anything about PostgreSQL to learn about
EnterpriseDB before they learn about other companies, but if that
press release is written in an inappropriately self-aggrandizing
fashion, once they do start to learn how it works, that's actually
going to work against EDB, not for it.  Tomas said more or less the
same thing upthread and I think he's right: grandstanding is not a
benefit to EnterpriseDB, or really anyone, anywhere, ever.  So I
*don't* think that our press release is inappropriately claiming
credit for anybody else's work, but if it is, then I think that's
first of all wrong but also secondly bad marketing that will come back
to bite us.

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

On 01/13/2016 10:08 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>>>>> If EnterpriseDB is making false statements, then it is
>>>>> entirely right for people to be upset about that, but our press
>>>>> release does not do that.  I have read that press release several
>>

>
> To be honest, I'm not sure the disparity in name recognition is
> anywhere near as large as you seem to be portraying here.  I think
> most people who care about PostgreSQL to any degree know that there
> are many PostgreSQL companies and who some of the leading ones are.
> It is possible that a press release from EnterpriseDB might cause
> somebody who doesn't yet know anything about PostgreSQL to learn about
> EnterpriseDB before they learn about other companies, but if that
> press release is written in an inappropriately self-aggrandizing
> fashion, once they do start to learn how it works, that's actually
> going to work against EDB, not for it.  Tomas said more or less the
> same thing upthread and I think he's right: grandstanding is not a
> benefit to EnterpriseDB, or really anyone, anywhere, ever.  So I
> *don't* think that our press release is inappropriately claiming
> credit for anybody else's work, but if it is, then I think that's
> first of all wrong but also secondly bad marketing that will come back
> to bite us.
>

As the person who opened this can of worms by making mention of the
article in question, I have the following to say. Enough already! Almost
immediately after my post Dave Page posted saying a correction was on
the way, which indeed happened. The post to --announce was admitted to
as a joint error by all concerned. Mea Culpa's have been issued
copiously. I would say all concerned have gotten the message that
mistakes happen, next time we try better. Parsing intent especially at a
distance and via electronic media is an exercise in futility. Personally
I think the needs of the community are best served by moving on. Lets
just get people using Postgres.


--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

On 01/13/2016 01:27 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> As the person who opened this can of worms by making mention of the
> article in question, I have the following to say. Enough already! Almost
> immediately after my post Dave Page posted saying a correction was on
> the way, which indeed happened. The post to --announce was admitted to
> as a joint error by all concerned. Mea Culpa's have been issued
> copiously. I would say all concerned have gotten the message that
> mistakes happen, next time we try better. Parsing intent especially at a
> distance and via electronic media is an exercise in futility. Personally
> I think the needs of the community are best served by moving on. Lets
> just get people using Postgres.

It was worth *mentioning*.  It just wasn't worth the length of this thread.

--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(opinions are my own)

On 01/13/2016 10:27 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote:

> As the person who opened this can of worms by making mention of the
> article in question, I have the following to say. Enough already! Almost
> immediately after my post Dave Page posted saying a correction was on
> the way, which indeed happened. The post to --announce was admitted to
> as a joint error by all concerned. Mea Culpa's have been issued
> copiously. I would say all concerned have gotten the message that
> mistakes happen, next time we try better. Parsing intent especially at a
> distance and via electronic media is an exercise in futility. Personally
> I think the needs of the community are best served by moving on. Lets
> just get people using Postgres.

Amen.


--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/  503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't
control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.

On 14/01/16 05:40, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>> a company to begin with the name of that company.  The press release
>>> says in the first sentence that the release was made by the PostgreSQL
>>> community.   Simon seems to think that's unacceptable, but I can say
>> Are we looking at the same thing? In mine it says that in the first sentence
>> of the third paragraph, not the first sentence (4th paragraph if you include
>> the tagline). I'm looking at
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOW=PeL3KBBOFDhQBR2GCw-s2afEw8iWy+dF38PaiYGa4=VrVQ@mail.gmail.com.
> I forgot to respond to this point specifically.  Yes, we are looking
> at the same thing.  I will quote the entire email up to the point
> where it mentions that that the release was made by the PostgreSQL
> community.
>
> ### BEGIN QUOTE ###
> *Performs 96% faster than v9.4 in benchmark tests*
>
> *Bedford, Mass. – Jan. 7, 2016* – EnterpriseDB <http://www.enterprisedb.com>®
> (EDB™), the leading enterprise Postgres database company, today announced
> the general availability of PostgreSQL 9.5, released by the Postgres
> community.
> ### END OF QUOTE ###
>
> Those last four words, "released by the Postgres community", are
> contained in the first complete sentence of the email.
>
Are people tired of actually working constructively on PostgreSQL???

There is so much energy diverted into frustrating and non-productive
areas like Code-of-Conduct and this press release!!!

Any ambiguity I had about EnterpriseDB's claims evaporated before the
end of the first sentence.


Cheers,
Gavin

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:40:38AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I forgot to respond to this point specifically.  Yes, we are looking
> at the same thing.  I will quote the entire email up to the point
> where it mentions that that the release was made by the PostgreSQL
> community.
>
> ### BEGIN QUOTE ###
> *Performs 96% faster than v9.4 in benchmark tests*
>
> *Bedford, Mass. – Jan. 7, 2016* – EnterpriseDB <http://www.enterprisedb.com>®
> (EDB™), the leading enterprise Postgres database company, today announced
> the general availability of PostgreSQL 9.5, released by the Postgres
> community.
> ### END OF QUOTE ###
>
> Those last four words, "released by the Postgres community", are
> contained in the first complete sentence of the email.

That phrase, "released by the Postgres community", is from me.  I gave
extensive feedback to EDB on every paragraph of the EDB press release,
and all my suggestions were accepted.

I know that first sentence is odd, and it struck me as odd too when I
read it during proofreading.  The problem is that 99+% of press releases
are by companies about their products, so if you deviate from that at
the start, it causes confusion, so I decided the best approach was to
say what company was making this press announcement (EDB), but that the
code was released by the Postgres community.

I thought about this several times for several minutes but couldn't come
up with something clearer.  Should I have kept trying?  Should I have
asked on this list?  I don't know, but I do know that I got to a point
where I felt I had spent enough time on it and went to work on something
I felt was more meaningful.  Frankly, I was not happy with the
"sharding" paragraph either, but felt I had spent enough time on the
document already.

At a certain point, you just do your best and move on, particularly with
something like press release text.  (It isn't like some coding error
that is demonstrably wrong and will cause users problems.)  Also at a
certain point, if the requirements for accuracy are too high, you just
decide not to get involved and do nothing.

Yes, there were clear mistakes, like the submission and acceptance of
the pgsql-announce posting, and the journalist who misquoted Dave.  I
have been misquoted so badly at times I can't figure out what I said to
generate that idea, but it is really the same case --- either you do the
interview and accept that sometimes you will be misquoted, perhaps
badly, or you don't do interviews, or require pre-approval of articles
(which is pretty much the same as doing no interviews, unless you are a
superstar).

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Roman grave inscription                             +

On 01/13/2016 04:36 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:40:38AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I forgot to respond to this point specifically.  Yes, we are looking
>> at the same thing.  I will quote the entire email up to the point
>> where it mentions that that the release was made by the PostgreSQL
>> community.
>>
>> ### BEGIN QUOTE ###
>> *Performs 96% faster than v9.4 in benchmark tests*
>>
>> *Bedford, Mass. – Jan. 7, 2016* – EnterpriseDB <http://www.enterprisedb.com>®
>> (EDB™), the leading enterprise Postgres database company, today announced
>> the general availability of PostgreSQL 9.5, released by the Postgres
>> community.
>> ### END OF QUOTE ###
>>
>> Those last four words, "released by the Postgres community", are
>> contained in the first complete sentence of the email.
> That phrase, "released by the Postgres community", is from me.  I gave
> extensive feedback to EDB on every paragraph of the EDB press release,
> and all my suggestions were accepted.
>
> I know that first sentence is odd, and it struck me as odd too when I
> read it during proofreading.  The problem is that 99+% of press releases
> are by companies about their products, so if you deviate from that at
> the start, it causes confusion, so I decided the best approach was to
> say what company was making this press announcement (EDB), but that the
> code was released by the Postgres community.



I'm not terribly fussed about it. I would suggest for the future that
the paragraph might read better as something like:

    EnterpriseDB <http://www.enterprisedb.com>® (EDB™), the leading enterprise Postgres database company, welcomes
today'sgeneral availability release by the PostgreSQL community of PostgreSQL 9.5. 

I think that's both less awkward and less misleading.

cheers

andrew

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 04:49:20PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >>Those last four words, "released by the Postgres community", are
> >>contained in the first complete sentence of the email.
> >That phrase, "released by the Postgres community", is from me.  I gave
> >extensive feedback to EDB on every paragraph of the EDB press release,
> >and all my suggestions were accepted.
> >
> >I know that first sentence is odd, and it struck me as odd too when I
> >read it during proofreading.  The problem is that 99+% of press releases
> >are by companies about their products, so if you deviate from that at
> >the start, it causes confusion, so I decided the best approach was to
> >say what company was making this press announcement (EDB), but that the
> >code was released by the Postgres community.
>
>
>
> I'm not terribly fussed about it. I would suggest for the future
> that the paragraph might read better as something like:
>
>    EnterpriseDB <http://www.enterprisedb.com>® (EDB™), the leading enterprise Postgres database company, welcomes
today'sgeneral availability release by the PostgreSQL community of PostgreSQL 9.5. 
>
> I think that's both less awkward and less misleading.

"Welcomes" is an interesting approach.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Roman grave inscription                             +

On 01/13/2016 01:54 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 04:49:20PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>> Those last four words, "released by the Postgres community", are
>>>> contained in the first complete sentence of the email.
>>> That phrase, "released by the Postgres community", is from me.  I gave
>>> extensive feedback to EDB on every paragraph of the EDB press release,
>>> and all my suggestions were accepted.
>>>
>>> I know that first sentence is odd, and it struck me as odd too when I
>>> read it during proofreading.  The problem is that 99+% of press releases
>>> are by companies about their products, so if you deviate from that at
>>> the start, it causes confusion, so I decided the best approach was to
>>> say what company was making this press announcement (EDB), but that the
>>> code was released by the Postgres community.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not terribly fussed about it. I would suggest for the future
>> that the paragraph might read better as something like:
>>
>>     EnterpriseDB <http://www.enterprisedb.com>® (EDB™), the leading enterprise Postgres database company, welcomes
today'sgeneral availability release by the PostgreSQL community of PostgreSQL 9.5. 
>>
>> I think that's both less awkward and less misleading.
>
> "Welcomes" is an interesting approach.

Agreed. I also think something like this would work much better (than
the original):

EnterpriseDB, the leading enterprise Postgres database company,
celebrates the community release of PostgreSQL 9.5. The worlds most
advanced Open Source database

What rubbed me wrong is it "felt" like postgres was an afterthought in
the original instead of the point.

Shrug. Take it, toss it, use it. I hope the feedback was useful.

Sincerely,

JD





--
Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/
                      +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 02:05:40PM -0800, Joshua Drake wrote:
> >>>I know that first sentence is odd, and it struck me as odd too when I
> >>>read it during proofreading.  The problem is that 99+% of press releases
> >>>are by companies about their products, so if you deviate from that at
> >>>the start, it causes confusion, so I decided the best approach was to
> >>>say what company was making this press announcement (EDB), but that the
> >>>code was released by the Postgres community.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>I'm not terribly fussed about it. I would suggest for the future
> >>that the paragraph might read better as something like:
> >>
> >>    EnterpriseDB <http://www.enterprisedb.com>® (EDB™), the leading enterprise Postgres database company, welcomes
today'sgeneral availability release by the PostgreSQL community of PostgreSQL 9.5. 
> >>
> >>I think that's both less awkward and less misleading.
> >
> >"Welcomes" is an interesting approach.
>
> Agreed. I also think something like this would work much better
> (than the original):
>
> EnterpriseDB, the leading enterprise Postgres database company,
> celebrates the community release of PostgreSQL 9.5. The worlds most
> advanced Open Source database
>
> What rubbed me wrong is it "felt" like postgres was an afterthought
> in the original instead of the point.
>
> Shrug. Take it, toss it, use it. I hope the feedback was useful.

Yes, I think this is text we can use next time.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Roman grave inscription                             +

>
> I really like this idea. As you say, we can't actually enforce
> anything. But as long as the text is balanced and fair, we can *ask*
> for it, and I think many of them would have no problem with that. As
> for the contents I would make it shorter than what you have written,
> but the important parts to get in is what it is (RDBMS, open source),
> who makes it (community and what makes up of it) and the link back to
> the main website.
>

Thanks for your answer Magnus. I think I'm going to start a brand new
thread and create a specific wiki page called "Corporate PR Guidelines",
if that sounds right.


--
Damien Clochard

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:02:01AM +0100, Damien Clochard wrote:
>
> >
> >I really like this idea. As you say, we can't actually enforce
> >anything. But as long as the text is balanced and fair, we can *ask*
> >for it, and I think many of them would have no problem with that. As
> >for the contents I would make it shorter than what you have written,
> >but the important parts to get in is what it is (RDBMS, open source),
> >who makes it (community and what makes up of it) and the link back to
> >the main website.
> >
>
> Thanks for your answer Magnus. I think I'm going to start a brand
> new thread and create a specific wiki page called "Corporate PR
> Guidelines", if that sounds right.

I think that would be helpful as we are having to guess some of these
things at this point.  You can even mention some of the press release
first-sentence wording as a suggestion.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Roman grave inscription                             +

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 08:51:36AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:02:01AM +0100, Damien Clochard wrote:
> > >I really like this idea. As you say, we can't actually enforce
> > >anything. But as long as the text is balanced and fair, we can *ask*
> > >for it, and I think many of them would have no problem with that. As
> > >for the contents I would make it shorter than what you have written,
> > >but the important parts to get in is what it is (RDBMS, open source),
> > >who makes it (community and what makes up of it) and the link back to
> > >the main website.
> >
> > Thanks for your answer Magnus. I think I'm going to start a brand
> > new thread and create a specific wiki page called "Corporate PR
> > Guidelines", if that sounds right.
>
> I think that would be helpful as we are having to guess some of these
> things at this point.  You can even mention some of the press release
> first-sentence wording as a suggestion.

Oh, you might want to make the title more general as many of the
organizations issuing PR announcements might not be corporations, maybe
"Company PR Guidelines".

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Roman grave inscription                             +