Thread: Advocacy wiki
Trying to put together my "What's New in 8.3" lightning talk, I'm surprised at the complete lack of advocacy resources. What little I can find is spread all over the place. In order to make life easier for others who are creating PostgreSQL presentations by providing links/copies of past presentations, as well as useful images, etc. ISTM the best way to do this is with a wiki. So, should I setup some pages on the developer wiki for this, or should we have a separate advocacy wiki? I'm leaning towards a separate one so that anyone can add resources... -- Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
> Trying to put together my "What's New in 8.3" lightning talk, I'm > surprised at the complete lack of advocacy resources. What little I > can find is spread all over the place. > > In order to make life easier for others who are creating PostgreSQL > presentations by providing links/copies of past presentations, as > well as useful images, etc. ISTM the best way to do this is with a wiki. > > So, should I setup some pages on the developer wiki for this, or > should we have a separate advocacy wiki? I'm leaning towards a > separate one so that anyone can add resources... I'm not going to comment on the general need. but if we're going to do that then please don't use the dev one, even thoughi see others already use it for such stuff. we absolutely do not want even more stuff loading up that machine at the moment. It's bad enough having the dev wikiwhere it is. /Magnus
Magnus Hagander wrote: >> Trying to put together my "What's New in 8.3" lightning talk, I'm >> surprised at the complete lack of advocacy resources. What little I >> can find is spread all over the place. >> >> In order to make life easier for others who are creating PostgreSQL >> presentations by providing links/copies of past presentations, as >> well as useful images, etc. ISTM the best way to do this is with a wiki. >> >> So, should I setup some pages on the developer wiki for this, or >> should we have a separate advocacy wiki? I'm leaning towards a >> separate one so that anyone can add resources... > > > I'm not going to comment on the general need. but if we're going to do that then please don't use the dev one, even thoughi see others already use it for such > stuff. we absolutely do not want even more stuff loading up that machine at the moment. It's bad enough having the devwiki where it is. It wasn't long ago that we 'rebranded' the developer wiki as a project wiki specifically to allow Josh B. To use if for advocacy purposes - in fact, the opening para now reads: "Please note that this is a PostgreSQL developer resource for use by people hacking the PostgreSQL source code or working on other areas of the project such as advocacy or the websites." I forget which list it was discussed on, but I'm pretty sure even you thought it was the best idea. /D
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 08:49:55AM +0100, Dave Page wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: > >>Trying to put together my "What's New in 8.3" lightning talk, I'm > >>surprised at the complete lack of advocacy resources. What little I > >>can find is spread all over the place. > >> > >>In order to make life easier for others who are creating PostgreSQL > >>presentations by providing links/copies of past presentations, as > >>well as useful images, etc. ISTM the best way to do this is with a wiki. > >> > >>So, should I setup some pages on the developer wiki for this, or > >>should we have a separate advocacy wiki? I'm leaning towards a > >>separate one so that anyone can add resources... > > > > > >I'm not going to comment on the general need. but if we're going to do > >that then please don't use the dev one, even though i see others already > >use it for such stuff. we absolutely do not want even more stuff loading > >up that machine at the moment. It's bad enough having the dev wiki where > >it is. > > It wasn't long ago that we 'rebranded' the developer wiki as a project > wiki specifically to allow Josh B. To use if for advocacy purposes - in > fact, the opening para now reads: > > "Please note that this is a PostgreSQL developer resource for use by > people hacking the PostgreSQL source code or working on other areas of > the project such as advocacy or the websites." > > I forget which list it was discussed on, but I'm pretty sure even you > thought it was the best idea. Actually, at the time we were discussing either temporary or "just for -advocacy internals". Maybe that's what's being referred to at this time, in which case I'm fine with it. But I read this as information that's for end-users as well, and we specifically said we don't want that on the wiki. (It was for some reason discussed on -advocacy instead of -www :P) Now, in general it seems that there is more and more info going on the wiki that's intended for end-users. That wasn't the original itent, but if that's what people want then so be it. But in that case, I'm very uncomfortable with where and how the wiki is currently set up, and I think that should be solved before we start moving in that direction in a more official way. //Magnus
Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 08:49:55AM +0100, Dave Page wrote: >> Magnus Hagander wrote: >>>> Trying to put together my "What's New in 8.3" lightning talk, I'm >>>> surprised at the complete lack of advocacy resources. What little I >>>> can find is spread all over the place. >>>> >>>> In order to make life easier for others who are creating PostgreSQL >>>> presentations by providing links/copies of past presentations, as >>>> well as useful images, etc. ISTM the best way to do this is with a wiki. >>>> >>>> So, should I setup some pages on the developer wiki for this, or >>>> should we have a separate advocacy wiki? I'm leaning towards a >>>> separate one so that anyone can add resources... >>> >>> I'm not going to comment on the general need. but if we're going to do >>> that then please don't use the dev one, even though i see others already >>> use it for such stuff. we absolutely do not want even more stuff loading >>> up that machine at the moment. It's bad enough having the dev wiki where >>> it is. >> It wasn't long ago that we 'rebranded' the developer wiki as a project >> wiki specifically to allow Josh B. To use if for advocacy purposes - in >> fact, the opening para now reads: >> >> "Please note that this is a PostgreSQL developer resource for use by >> people hacking the PostgreSQL source code or working on other areas of >> the project such as advocacy or the websites." >> >> I forget which list it was discussed on, but I'm pretty sure even you >> thought it was the best idea. > > Actually, at the time we were discussing either temporary or "just for > -advocacy internals". Maybe that's what's being referred to at this time, > in which case I'm fine with it. But I read this as information that's for > end-users as well, and we specifically said we don't want that on the wiki. > (It was for some reason discussed on -advocacy instead of -www :P) No, stuff for end users was specifically excluded from the wiki from the outset - and that should remain the case. We don't want 'unofficial' docs springing up all over the place - that's what techdocs is for. /D
Dave Page wrote: > No, stuff for end users was specifically excluded from the wiki from the > outset - and that should remain the case. We don't want 'unofficial' docs > springing up all over the place - that's what techdocs is for. Doesn't that ring the bell that maybe techdocs is not as great as we think? If people are desperately looking at alternatives, that may mean something. What is it? -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Dave Page wrote: > >> No, stuff for end users was specifically excluded from the wiki from the >> outset - and that should remain the case. We don't want 'unofficial' docs >> springing up all over the place - that's what techdocs is for. > > Doesn't that ring the bell that maybe techdocs is not as great as we > think? If people are desperately looking at alternatives, that may mean > something. What is it? > Afaik there are no outstanding bugs or feature requests with Techdocs - however it does require moderation before docs are published. Perhaps thats what people are trying to avoid? Regards, Dave
Greg Smith added to Cc: Dave Page wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Dave Page wrote: >>> No, stuff for end users was specifically excluded from the wiki from the >>> outset - and that should remain the case. We don't want 'unofficial' docs >>> springing up all over the place - that's what techdocs is for. >> Doesn't that ring the bell that maybe techdocs is not as great as we >> think? If people are desperately looking at alternatives, that may mean >> something. What is it? > > Afaik there are no outstanding bugs or feature requests with Techdocs - > however it does require moderation before docs are published. Perhaps thats > what people are trying to avoid? Maybe people don't _realize_ that techdocs is "a wiki", with on-line editability and all. Why else would be Greg Smith resisting moving his MySQL doc to it right away? -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Greg Smith added to Cc: > > Dave Page wrote: >> Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> Dave Page wrote: >>>> No, stuff for end users was specifically excluded from the wiki from the >>>> outset - and that should remain the case. We don't want 'unofficial' docs >>>> springing up all over the place - that's what techdocs is for. >>> Doesn't that ring the bell that maybe techdocs is not as great as we >>> think? If people are desperately looking at alternatives, that may mean >>> something. What is it? >> Afaik there are no outstanding bugs or feature requests with Techdocs - >> however it does require moderation before docs are published. Perhaps thats >> what people are trying to avoid? > > Maybe people don't _realize_ that techdocs is "a wiki", with on-line > editability and all. Why else would be Greg Smith resisting moving his > MySQL doc to it right away? > It's not a wiki though - it's designed for a single person to modify and submit a document for inclusion once moderated. This is the case for much of the techdocs content which may be presentations people have produced, or howto's they've written during their daily work (perhaps whilst figuring out a migration from another DBMS). It's not suitable for collaborating while writing the document, but the wiki is. Greg has already said that once written, he intends to move the doc to techdocs - that sounds like a fine plan to me. Regards, Dave.
On Jul 25, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Actually, at the time we were discussing either temporary or "just for > -advocacy internals". Maybe that's what's being referred to at this > time, > in which case I'm fine with it. But I read this as information > that's for > end-users as well, and we specifically said we don't want that on > the wiki. > (It was for some reason discussed on -advocacy instead of -www :P) My intention was indeed that general community members could make use of this. I want to make it easier for other people to advocate PostgreSQL, and part of that is providing a place where they can upload presentations, photos, etc. This is something that should be collaborative in nature, so I don't think techdocs is a good place for it. -- Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - --On Wednesday, July 25, 2007 18:12:50 -0700 Jim Nasby <decibel@decibel.org> wrote: > My intention was indeed that general community members could make use of > this. I want to make it easier for other people to advocate PostgreSQL, and > part of that is providing a place where they can upload presentations, > photos, etc. This is something that should be collaborative in nature, so I > don't think techdocs is a good place for it. I'd like to move the developer wiki to it own VPS, and out of the core developer one, just to save against potential 'web based security holes' ... would it be an idea ot setup a seperate 'advocacy wiki', along the lines of what you are suggesting (with suitable moderation / review) from the developer one, which would remian closed? And, do you have the time / energy to actually moderate such a beast ... I think one of the bigger fears is ppl uploading mis-information into such an "official wiki", and I think that fear is fairly justified with the amount of spam-bots going around filling in forms left-right-and-center ... Personally, I can see the benefit of what you are suggesting, but do think that a certain amount of control / moderation is required to keep it clean and accurate ... then again, maybe we want Al Dev back again? For those that don't know the name, he into 'creative technical writing' that is akin to 'the aliens are coming' :) - ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFGqATe4QvfyHIvDvMRArV2AKCQUheJtd0rR3y0uxsNM+ZXmqdC1wCfSKYW wpqfyZWv1qx9ciQEHUcBZ0w= =1Yux -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Jul 25, 2007, at 7:20 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > - --On Wednesday, July 25, 2007 18:12:50 -0700 Jim Nasby > <decibel@decibel.org> > wrote: > >> My intention was indeed that general community members could make >> use of >> this. I want to make it easier for other people to advocate >> PostgreSQL, and >> part of that is providing a place where they can upload >> presentations, >> photos, etc. This is something that should be collaborative in >> nature, so I >> don't think techdocs is a good place for it. > > I'd like to move the developer wiki to it own VPS, and out of the core > developer one, just to save against potential 'web based security > holes' ... > would it be an idea ot setup a seperate 'advocacy wiki', along the > lines of > what you are suggesting (with suitable moderation / review) from > the developer > one, which would remian closed? Perhaps we should stop drawing the line at "developer" and "advocacy" and just have one wiki that's open to public edits and one that's not. > And, do you have the time / energy to actually moderate such a > beast ... I > think one of the bigger fears is ppl uploading mis-information into > such an > "official wiki", and I think that fear is fairly justified with the > amount of > spam-bots going around filling in forms left-right-and-center ... If it's dependent on a single person to keep it clean, we're doing something wrong. :) But yes, I'll certainly help in that regard. > Personally, I can see the benefit of what you are suggesting, but > do think that > a certain amount of control / moderation is required to keep it > clean and > accurate ... then again, maybe we want Al Dev back again? For > those that don't > know the name, he into 'creative technical writing' that is akin to > 'the aliens > are coming' :) Sure, we'll have to keep an eye on it. It might also be a good idea to make it clear that it's unofficial. -- Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 04:24:11PM -0700, Jim Nasby wrote: > On Jul 25, 2007, at 7:20 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > >- --On Wednesday, July 25, 2007 18:12:50 -0700 Jim Nasby > ><decibel@decibel.org> > >wrote: > > > >I'd like to move the developer wiki to it own VPS, and out of the core > >developer one, just to save against potential 'web based security > >holes' ... > >would it be an idea ot setup a seperate 'advocacy wiki', along the > >lines of > >what you are suggesting (with suitable moderation / review) from > >the developer > >one, which would remian closed? > > Perhaps we should stop drawing the line at "developer" and "advocacy" > and just have one wiki that's open to public edits and one that's not. Just file me in the group that don't want a publically-editable wiki at all ;-) Apart from that, I don't think we need more than one wiki. Two wikis is twice the maintenance effort, for very little gain. Better to structure one of them to deal with both sets of content. > >And, do you have the time / energy to actually moderate such a > >beast ... I > >think one of the bigger fears is ppl uploading mis-information into > >such an > >"official wiki", and I think that fear is fairly justified with the > >amount of > >spam-bots going around filling in forms left-right-and-center ... > > If it's dependent on a single person to keep it clean, we're doing > something wrong. :) Yeah, you never looked at the docs comment sbefore, did you? There was whole team of people supposed to keep taht clean, and we had *thousands* of spam and support questions in there. The rate was at least 3 junk for every one good. Now we require a login (that it's really easy to sign up for), and spam is down to pretty much zero and the good-to-bad ratio is *much* better. Bottom line: in theory it works fine, but I doubt it'll work in practice. It's been proven not to before. //Magnus
On Jul 27, 2007, at 1:13 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> And, do you have the time / energy to actually moderate such a >>> beast ... I >>> think one of the bigger fears is ppl uploading mis-information into >>> such an >>> "official wiki", and I think that fear is fairly justified with the >>> amount of >>> spam-bots going around filling in forms left-right-and-center ... >> >> If it's dependent on a single person to keep it clean, we're doing >> something wrong. :) > > Yeah, you never looked at the docs comment sbefore, did you? There was > whole team of people supposed to keep taht clean, and we had > *thousands* of > spam and support questions in there. The rate was at least 3 junk > for every > one good. > > Now we require a login (that it's really easy to sign up for), and > spam is > down to pretty much zero and the good-to-bad ratio is *much* better. > > Bottom line: in theory it works fine, but I doubt it'll work in > practice. > It's been proven not to before. We should absolutely require a login/account... my point was that restricting all editing to just official community members is too restrictive for a lot of things. -- Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby decibel@decibel.org EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)