Thread: Approval process for news/events/training is broken
WWW folks, I've just noticed again today that the way we approve news, events, and training for the front page is seriously broken. Currently, if only *one* person with approval rights thinks that something is OK, it gets approved immediately. This means that screw-ups like this morning happen repeatedly. Namely, EDB posted a link-only announcement, which we've discussed before as not being acceptable for PostgreSQL. I pinged Robert and asked him not to approve it, and phoned EDB's PR agent, and she was giving me new content ... when someone else decided to approve it. We need the news/events system to change in two ways: 1) There needs to be a way for admins to flag an item as "don't approve, there's a problem" so that if one person knows of a reason to hold, someone coming online later won't approve due to being clueless. 2) approvers should wait at least a couple of hours before approving things. 3) We need a written policy of what is acceptable for news/events/training and what isn't. I can do (3) but (1) and (2) are up to the other "slaves". --Josh Berkus
Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 11:11 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >> 1) There needs to be a way for admins to flag an item as "don't >> approve, there's a problem" so that if one person knows of a reason >> to hold, someone coming online later won't approve due to being >> clueless. > > Yeah, we should simply delete the items which includes "DO NOT > APPROVE ... WAITING FOR MORE TEXT.". > > I cannot understand why someone would post such an item... Wait until > the text comes, and then submit it! I just added that a few minutes ago. BTW, I did get corrections from Christian, so will be replacing/updating the item after a sufficient interval has passed since the 8.3 beta release. --Josh
Josh Berkus wrote: > WWW folks, > > I've just noticed again today that the way we approve news, events, and > training for the front page is seriously broken. Currently, if only > *one* person with approval rights thinks that something is OK, it gets > approved immediately. > > This means that screw-ups like this morning happen repeatedly. Namely, > EDB posted a link-only announcement, which we've discussed before as not > being acceptable for PostgreSQL. I pinged Robert and asked him not to > approve it, and phoned EDB's PR agent, and she was giving me new content > ... when someone else decided to approve it. well that particular news item was like 10 days old as far as I can see ... > > We need the news/events system to change in two ways: > > 1) There needs to be a way for admins to flag an item as "don't approve, > there's a problem" so that if one person knows of a reason to hold, > someone coming online later won't approve due to being clueless. that seems doable though > > 2) approvers should wait at least a couple of hours before approving > things. well ... see above > > 3) We need a written policy of what is acceptable for > news/events/training and what isn't. sounds like a good thing - maybe simply have it as some sort of checklist in the interface to check against ? Stefan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> WWW folks,
>>
>> I've just noticed again today that the way we approve news, events, and
>> training for the front page is seriously broken. Currently, if only
>> *one* person with approval rights thinks that something is OK, it gets
>> approved immediately.
>>
>> This means that screw-ups like this morning happen repeatedly. Namely,
>> EDB posted a link-only announcement, which we've discussed before as not
>> being acceptable for PostgreSQL. I pinged Robert and asked him not to
>> approve it, and phoned EDB's PR agent, and she was giving me new content
>> ... when someone else decided to approve it.
>
> well that particular news item was like 10 days old as far as I can see ...
>
>> We need the news/events system to change in two ways:
>>
>> 1) There needs to be a way for admins to flag an item as "don't approve,
>> there's a problem" so that if one person knows of a reason to hold,
>> someone coming online later won't approve due to being clueless.
>
> that seems doable though
>
>> 2) approvers should wait at least a couple of hours before approving
>> things.
>
> well ... see above
>
>
>> 3) We need a written policy of what is acceptable for
>> news/events/training and what isn't.
>
> sounds like a good thing - maybe simply have it as some sort of
> checklist in the interface to check against ?
Would a simple solution be, that at least two people have to approve it?
>
>
> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHCnoXATb/zqfZUUQRAh3YAJ9Ylj/tmTxZh06ewPxWULLI0xT2MACffkvL
dUsiVXHOjaWtEax20C8Irog=
=fuIj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Stefan, >> 1) There needs to be a way for admins to flag an item as "don't approve, >> there's a problem" so that if one person knows of a reason to hold, >> someone coming online later won't approve due to being clueless. > > that seems doable though > >> 2) approvers should wait at least a couple of hours before approving >> things. > > well ... see above Yeah, I misread the news item. > > >> 3) We need a written policy of what is acceptable for >> news/events/training and what isn't. > > sounds like a good thing - maybe simply have it as some sort of > checklist in the interface to check against ? Yeah. The problem is that we discuss policies on what is/isn't acceptable, and then later on one or another approver says "I don't remember discussing that". So it needs to be somewhere easy-to-refer. --Josh
Hi, On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 11:42 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > sounds like a good thing - maybe simply have it as some sort of > > checklist in the interface to check against ? > > Would a simple solution be, that at least two people have to approve > it? I don't think so. That will delay all of the news approvals, I'm sure. Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 11:42 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> sounds like a good thing - maybe simply have it as some sort of
>>> checklist in the interface to check against ?
>> Would a simple solution be, that at least two people have to approve
>> it?
>
> I don't think so. That will delay all of the news approvals, I'm sure.
When there are pending news items... is anyone notified?
>
> Regards,
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHCn3BATb/zqfZUUQRAr2fAJ9RNxk9no7dbFQKBInFWQAmCkaQrgCfcdiX
Ld/q/8N//0tMDpFD5FpncQ8=
=Gj8O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi, On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 11:11 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > 1) There needs to be a way for admins to flag an item as "don't > approve, there's a problem" so that if one person knows of a reason > to hold, someone coming online later won't approve due to being > clueless. Yeah, we should simply delete the items which includes "DO NOT APPROVE ... WAITING FOR MORE TEXT.". I cannot understand why someone would post such an item... Wait until the text comes, and then submit it! -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/
Hi, On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 11:58 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > I don't think so. That will delay all of the news approvals, I'm > sure. > > When there are pending news items... is anyone notified? Yes, when a new item is submitted, the slaves get an e-mail. Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/
Josh Berkus wrote: > WWW folks, > > I've just noticed again today that the way we approve news, events, and > training for the front page is seriously broken. Currently, if only > *one* person with approval rights thinks that something is OK, it gets > approved immediately. I think that was me this time (I honestly don't recall 100%, but it's quite possible). Sorry about that. > This means that screw-ups like this morning happen repeatedly. Namely, > EDB posted a link-only announcement, which we've discussed before as not > being acceptable for PostgreSQL. I pinged Robert and asked him not to > approve it, and phoned EDB's PR agent, and she was giving me new content > ... when someone else decided to approve it. Why on earth didn't you email either -www or -slaves about it? It should be pretty darn obvious that talking to Robert only means talking to Robert, and not talking to the other people, no? > We need the news/events system to change in two ways: > > 1) There needs to be a way for admins to flag an item as "don't approve, > there's a problem" so that if one person knows of a reason to hold, > someone coming online later won't approve due to being clueless. Ok. That should be fairly easy. How about a text field with "admins comment", so you can tell people *why*, what's being done, and who's doing it? > 2) approvers should wait at least a couple of hours before approving > things. As has previously been stated, it had waited for days. > 3) We need a written policy of what is acceptable for > news/events/training and what isn't. > > I can do (3) but (1) and (2) are up to the other "slaves". *please* do. I've been asking for this since the first day I started doing news approvals. While at it, please make one for events as well, as they're very similar. We really should have one for doc comments, quotes etc as well, but those two are the most important ones. I'll be quite happy to stay away from approving news and/or events until such a document exists. I would suggest others do as well. //Magnus
On Monday 08 October 2007 16:39, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > WWW folks,
> >
> > I've just noticed again today that the way we approve news, events, and
> > training for the front page is seriously broken. Currently, if only
> > *one* person with approval rights thinks that something is OK, it gets
> > approved immediately.
>
> I think that was me this time (I honestly don't recall 100%, but it's
> quite possible). Sorry about that.
>
Just so that everyone knows, the email notice on approval is broken. We still
have a crud audit trail available via apache logs, but this ought to be
fixed.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:11:25AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > 1) There needs to be a way for admins to flag an item as "don't approve, > there's a problem" so that if one person knows of a reason to hold, > someone coming online later won't approve due to being clueless. This seems ok-ish, except that the example in this case is not one where it ought to come into play -- this was just a violation of policy, no? > 2) approvers should wait at least a couple of hours before approving things. Why? If the idea is that some approvers are more accurate or capable or whatever, then only those approvers ought to be approving, no? This kind of "wait a while" policy does nothing to increase accuracy, and merely slows things down. > 3) We need a written policy of what is acceptable for > news/events/training and what isn't. This makes sense. A -- Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca Unfortunately reformatting the Internet is a little more painful than reformatting your hard drive when it gets out of whack. --Scott Morris
All, > > 3) We need a written policy of what is acceptable for > > news/events/training and what isn't. OK, here's a draft: http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php/NewsEventsApproval -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote: > All, > >>> 3) We need a written policy of what is acceptable for >>> news/events/training and what isn't. > > OK, here's a draft: > > http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php/NewsEventsApproval Looks very good to me. /D
Dave, all: > > http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php/NewsEventsApproval > > Looks very good to me. No objections or modifications? Can we make the document canonical and link the criteria from the Submit page, then? If we're going to restrict what we accept, we should let submitters know the rules. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote: > Dave, all: > >>> http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php/NewsEventsApproval >> Looks very good to me. > > No objections or modifications? Can we make the document canonical and link > the criteria from the Submit page, then? No, I'm fine with it. We should format it up as part of the main site rather than linking to the wiki. > If we're going to restrict what we accept, we should let submitters know the > rules. Yep. /D
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 08:51:38AM +0100, Dave Page wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: > > Dave, all: > > > >>> http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php/NewsEventsApproval > >> Looks very good to me. > > > > No objections or modifications? Can we make the document canonical and link > > the criteria from the Submit page, then? > > No, I'm fine with it. We should format it up as part of the main site > rather than linking to the wiki. One clearification - does "Postgresql family news" include all pgfoundry projects, or just "major" ones? If second, how do we define which are major? Also, looking back at the news just added today, is "EnterpriseDB Postgres" considered a "postgresql family product" or a commercial one? Maybe a guidance bullet on "downstream distributions"? As for events, I'm not sure I agree with the very last point, about "conferences with little pg content". I think that depends a lot - in some areas, having a single postgresql session *is* a major event. It no longer is in the US for example, but in a lot of other places it is. Training events - should we require that they include information about the cost to attend? (and +42 on making it a real webpage, since we need something that's very stable if we point our visitors to it) > > If we're going to restrict what we accept, we should let submitters know the > > rules. > > Yep. Absolutely //Magnus
Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 08:51:38AM +0100, Dave Page wrote: >> Josh Berkus wrote: >>> Dave, all: >>> >>>>> http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php/NewsEventsApproval >>>> Looks very good to me. >>> No objections or modifications? Can we make the document canonical and link >>> the criteria from the Submit page, then? >> No, I'm fine with it. We should format it up as part of the main site >> rather than linking to the wiki. > > One clearification - does "Postgresql family news" include all pgfoundry > projects, or just "major" ones? If second, how do we define which are > major? It should be all - after all, they have a fairly rigourous approval process to get on pgFoundry in the first place. > Also, looking back at the news just added today, is "EnterpriseDB Postgres" > considered a "postgresql family product" or a commercial one? Maybe a > guidance bullet on "downstream distributions"? It's certainly not commercial, but yes that does seem worth clarifying. > As for events, I'm not sure I agree with the very last point, about > "conferences with little pg content". I think that depends a lot - in some > areas, having a single postgresql session *is* a major event. It no longer > is in the US for example, but in a lot of other places it is. It's a bit subjective. I'd be happy with any level of content from a single session up, as long as it includes details so people don't spend serious money getting somewhere only to find just a single session. > Training events - should we require that they include information about the > cost to attend? Sounds reasonable. /D
Dave Page wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 08:51:38AM +0100, Dave Page wrote: >>> Josh Berkus wrote: >>>> Dave, all: >> Also, looking back at the news just added today, is "EnterpriseDB Postgres" >> considered a "postgresql family product" or a commercial one? Maybe a >> guidance bullet on "downstream distributions"? > > It's certainly not commercial, but yes that does seem worth clarifying. It depends on what you are meaning by "commercial". This is a common problem amongst FOSS people. FOSS can be commercial. I would actually argue that EnterpriseDB Postgres *is* commercial as it is backed and supported by a *commercial* Enterprise. The real question is, "is it proprietary". If it is even partially closed source then it really doesn't belong in the "postgresql family product" unless we also include MPP and Replicator. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > >> As for events, I'm not sure I agree with the very last point, about >> "conferences with little pg content". I think that depends a lot - in some >> areas, having a single postgresql session *is* a major event. It no longer >> is in the US for example, but in a lot of other places it is. I think as long as the postgresql content is published as part of their material then it should be fine. > It's a bit subjective. I'd be happy with any level of content from a > single session up, as long as it includes details so people don't spend > serious money getting somewhere only to find just a single session. +1 > >> Training events - should we require that they include information about the >> cost to attend? > > Sounds reasonable. > +1 Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > /D > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at > > http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate >
Dave, >> Also, looking back at the news just added today, is "EnterpriseDB Postgres" >> considered a "postgresql family product" or a commercial one? Maybe a >> guidance bullet on "downstream distributions"? > > It's certainly not commercial, but yes that does seem worth clarifying. Actually, I'd argue that it's commercial. That was what I had in mind when I drafted the rules. For one thing, like the tools SW makers, EDB tends to bury us under press releases and need reigning in, in a way that OSS projects generally don't. > It's a bit subjective. I'd be happy with any level of content from a > single session up, as long as it includes details so people don't spend > serious money getting somewhere only to find just a single session. Well, we need to draw some line for PostgreSQL content. A 200-session conference with one session which covers using PHP with PostgreSQL alongside MySQL and DB2 really shouldn't go on the site. Maybe we should just re-write that as "significant PostgreSQL content" and leave it up to WWW what "significant" is? > >> Training events - should we require that they include information about the >> cost to attend? > > Sounds reasonable. Sure. Mind you, they usually do. We haven't had a problem with trainers not providing enough content, just posting too frequently. BTW, have we fixed the training events so that they stop displaying once they start? --Josh
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Dave Page wrote: >> Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 08:51:38AM +0100, Dave Page wrote: >>>> Josh Berkus wrote: >>>>> Dave, all: >>> Also, looking back at the news just added today, is "EnterpriseDB >>> Postgres" >>> considered a "postgresql family product" or a commercial one? Maybe a >>> guidance bullet on "downstream distributions"? >> >> It's certainly not commercial, but yes that does seem worth clarifying. > > It depends on what you are meaning by "commercial". This is a common > problem amongst FOSS people. FOSS can be commercial. I would actually > argue that EnterpriseDB Postgres *is* commercial as it is backed and > supported by a *commercial* Enterprise. > > The real question is, "is it proprietary". If it is even partially > closed source then it really doesn't belong in the "postgresql family > product" unless we also include MPP and Replicator. You know what I mean :-). And all of EDB-Postgres is open source, including the funky little MySQL migrator tool in the latest builds. /D
Josh Berkus wrote: > Dave, > >>> Also, looking back at the news just added today, is "EnterpriseDB >>> Postgres" >>> considered a "postgresql family product" or a commercial one? Maybe a >>> guidance bullet on "downstream distributions"? >> >> It's certainly not commercial, but yes that does seem worth clarifying. > > Actually, I'd argue that it's commercial. That was what I had in mind > when I drafted the rules. For one thing, like the tools SW makers, EDB > tends to bury us under press releases and need reigning in, in a way > that OSS projects generally don't. I couldn't possibly comment on the work of our marketing dept :-) >> It's a bit subjective. I'd be happy with any level of content from a >> single session up, as long as it includes details so people don't spend >> serious money getting somewhere only to find just a single session. > > Well, we need to draw some line for PostgreSQL content. A 200-session > conference with one session which covers using PHP with PostgreSQL > alongside MySQL and DB2 really shouldn't go on the site. Maybe we > should just re-write that as "significant PostgreSQL content" and leave > it up to WWW what "significant" is? Might be easiest. >>> Training events - should we require that they include information >>> about the >>> cost to attend? >> >> Sounds reasonable. > > Sure. Mind you, they usually do. We haven't had a problem with > trainers not providing enough content, just posting too frequently. > > BTW, have we fixed the training events so that they stop displaying once > they start? I haven't but then I've been kinda busy with releases. Dunno if anyone else did. /D
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 08:44:40AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > alongside MySQL and DB2 really shouldn't go on the site. Maybe we > should just re-write that as "significant PostgreSQL content" and leave > it up to WWW what "significant" is? I like that answer. A -- Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca "The year's penultimate month" is not in truth a good way of saying November. --H.W. Fowler
Josh Berkus wrote: > Dave, > >>> Also, looking back at the news just added today, is "EnterpriseDB >>> Postgres" >>> considered a "postgresql family product" or a commercial one? Maybe a >>> guidance bullet on "downstream distributions"? >> >> It's certainly not commercial, but yes that does seem worth clarifying. > > Actually, I'd argue that it's commercial. That was what I had in mind > when I drafted the rules. For one thing, like the tools SW makers, EDB > tends to bury us under press releases and need reigning in, in a way > that OSS projects generally don't. I agree, but should our policy be worded in respect of that one case? Maybe find a better way under a separate bullet point for such a product? >> It's a bit subjective. I'd be happy with any level of content from a >> single session up, as long as it includes details so people don't spend >> serious money getting somewhere only to find just a single session. > > Well, we need to draw some line for PostgreSQL content. A 200-session > conference with one session which covers using PHP with PostgreSQL > alongside MySQL and DB2 really shouldn't go on the site. Maybe we > should just re-write that as "significant PostgreSQL content" and leave > it up to WWW what "significant" is? I think a dedicated PostgreSQL talk is most of the time significant. Leaving it up to www would probably work fine. >>> Training events - should we require that they include information >>> about the >>> cost to attend? >> >> Sounds reasonable. > > Sure. Mind you, they usually do. We haven't had a problem with > trainers not providing enough content, just posting too frequently. I know, but if we have a policy, it should be complete :) It's not just for the situation we have now, it's also for the situation we'll ahve tomorrow. //Magnus
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:56:19 +0100
Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org> wrote:
> > It depends on what you are meaning by "commercial". This is a common
> > problem amongst FOSS people. FOSS can be commercial. I would
> > actually argue that EnterpriseDB Postgres *is* commercial as it is
> > backed and supported by a *commercial* Enterprise.
> >
> > The real question is, "is it proprietary". If it is even partially
> > closed source then it really doesn't belong in the "postgresql
> > family product" unless we also include MPP and Replicator.
>
> You know what I mean :-). And all of EDB-Postgres is open source,
> including the funky little MySQL migrator tool in the latest builds.
Yes I know what you mean :) but others may not, so I am trying to be
specific.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> /D
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
Dave Page wrote: > >>> Also, looking back at the news just added today, is "EnterpriseDB > >>> Postgres" > >>> considered a "postgresql family product" or a commercial one? Maybe a > >>> guidance bullet on "downstream distributions"? > >> > >> It's certainly not commercial, but yes that does seem worth clarifying. > > > > It depends on what you are meaning by "commercial". This is a common > > problem amongst FOSS people. FOSS can be commercial. I would actually > > argue that EnterpriseDB Postgres *is* commercial as it is backed and > > supported by a *commercial* Enterprise. > > > > The real question is, "is it proprietary". If it is even partially > > closed source then it really doesn't belong in the "postgresql family > > product" unless we also include MPP and Replicator. > > You know what I mean :-). And all of EDB-Postgres is open source, > including the funky little MySQL migrator tool in the latest builds. Uh, doesn't the installer use a commercial product that isn't open source? Does requiring non-open source tools to build something make it non-open source? Postgres requires a C compiler that can be open or closed source so I don't know if that helps clarify things. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:20:36 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > > The real question is, "is it proprietary". If it is even partially
> > > closed source then it really doesn't belong in the "postgresql
> > > family product" unless we also include MPP and Replicator.
> >
> > You know what I mean :-). And all of EDB-Postgres is open source,
> > including the funky little MySQL migrator tool in the latest builds.
>
> Uh, doesn't the installer use a commercial product that isn't open
> source? Does requiring non-open source tools to build something make
> it non-open source? Postgres requires a C compiler that can be open
> or closed source so I don't know if that helps clarify things.
Well I think I C compiler is a little different.
If the Installer is closed source, that is part of the package and I
would consider that a show stopper, because I need a closed source
package to install the software...
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
Folks, >>> The real question is, "is it proprietary". If it is even partially >>> closed source then it really doesn't belong in the "postgresql family >>> product" unless we also include MPP and Replicator. >> You know what I mean :-). And all of EDB-Postgres is open source, >> including the funky little MySQL migrator tool in the latest builds. > > Uh, doesn't the installer use a commercial product that isn't open > source? Does requiring non-open source tools to build something make it > non-open source? Postgres requires a C compiler that can be open or > closed source so I don't know if that helps clarify things. I don't think any of this is relevant for the News page. The question is, will the person sending me the press release be a paid PR person, or an OSS developer? We treat the two differently because they're going to send us different sorts of news at different intervals. For example, I would treat EDB-Postgres as "commercial" because they send us formal press releases every 3 weeks, which often need significant re-writing to target our developers. On the other hand, if we get anything from OpenRPT it's just a release announcement, maybe once a year, so we can treat them like an "PostgreSQL Family" OSS project. So it's not commercial vs. open source *product*, it's commercial vs. open source *news*. --Josh Berkus
> >>> The real question is, "is it proprietary". If it is even partially > >>> closed source then it really doesn't belong in the "postgresql family > >>> product" unless we also include MPP and Replicator. > >> You know what I mean :-). And all of EDB-Postgres is open source, > >> including the funky little MySQL migrator tool in the latest builds. > > > > Uh, doesn't the installer use a commercial product that isn't open > > source? Does requiring non-open source tools to build something make it > > non-open source? Postgres requires a C compiler that can be open or > > closed source so I don't know if that helps clarify things. > > I don't think any of this is relevant for the News page. The question > is, will the person sending me the press release be a paid PR person, or > an OSS developer? We treat the two differently because they're going to > send us different sorts of news at different intervals. > > For example, I would treat EDB-Postgres as "commercial" because they > send us formal press releases every 3 weeks, which often need > significant re-writing to target our developers. On the other hand, if > we get anything from OpenRPT it's just a release announcement, maybe > once a year, so we can treat them like an "PostgreSQL Family" OSS project. > > So it's not commercial vs. open source *product*, it's commercial vs. > open source *news*. That makes sense. But that needs to be clear in the policy, since it seems we all got it wrong :-) (maybe now they'll have Dave write the news submissions instead. He'l hate you forever :-P) /Magnus
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Uh, doesn't the installer use a commercial product that isn't open > source? Yes, but then so does pgInstaller. > Does requiring non-open source tools to build something make it > non-open source? Postgres requires a C compiler that can be open or > closed source so I don't know if that helps clarify things. No. The licence is on the code, not the toolchain used to build it. Otherwise you could argue that nothing could be open source on Windows. Or that pgAdmin I (GPL) or pgAdmin II (Artistic) or psqlODBC (LGPL) are closed source. /D
Folks, > > So it's not commercial vs. open source *product*, it's commercial vs. > > open source *news*. > > That makes sense. But that needs to be clear in the policy, since it seems > we all got it wrong :-) I will point out that this is on a wiki, people. One to which all of the folks on this thread have write access. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco