Thread: Planet posting policy
Team, I think we need to change the posting policy of planet. It seems entirely too restrictive. Now I don't think we should go reddit with it but we are all people here and we are all part of this community. Should the majority of posts to planet be postgresql related? Of course but seriously, can we have a little fun too? Can we not remember that as people in this community that actually makes the post relevant to postgresql? In short can we stop getting our boxers in a bunch about everything and remember to have some damn fun? For atheists sake, slow down on the caffeine and go to your medical dispensary for some inhaled herbal pain killer. JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development The PostgreSQL Conference - http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ @cmdpromptinc - @postgresconf - 509-416-6579
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 > I think we need to change the posting policy of planet. It seems > entirely too restrictive. Now I don't think we should go reddit with it > but we are all people here and we are all part of this community. Should > the majority of posts to planet be postgresql related? Of course but > seriously, can we have a little fun too? Can we not remember that as > people in this community that actually makes the post relevant to > postgresql? > > In short can we stop getting our boxers in a bunch about everything and > remember to have some damn fun? For atheists sake, slow down on the > caffeine and go to your medical dispensary for some inhaled herbal pain > killer. I'm guessing this is directed at me, so can you show me/us some example posts that are against the current policy but you feel should be allowed? For the record, I think "posts to planet postgresql must be postgresql related" is a pretty darn good rule, and one I'm loath to change. What exact change are you proposing anyway? I'm not quite able to parse the last sentence in your first paragraph. > go to your medical dispensary for some inhaled herbal pain killer. Sorry, I live in Pennsylvania, not in that damned hippy West coast US area. :) </slightly_jealous> - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201107132153 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAk4eTLQACgkQvJuQZxSWSsgPMwCeMIOTo+ZsfhFhJAhspp5VROZI kUAAoP29+tu5ehw1fTM3v/qY+WpkjbUr =A93O -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:56 AM, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: RIPEMD160 > > >> I think we need to change the posting policy of planet. It seems >> entirely too restrictive. Now I don't think we should go reddit with it >> but we are all people here and we are all part of this community. Should >> the majority of posts to planet be postgresql related? Of course but >> seriously, can we have a little fun too? Can we not remember that as >> people in this community that actually makes the post relevant to >> postgresql? >> >> In short can we stop getting our boxers in a bunch about everything and >> remember to have some damn fun? For atheists sake, slow down on the >> caffeine and go to your medical dispensary for some inhaled herbal pain >> killer. > > I'm guessing this is directed at me, so can you show me/us some example > posts that are against the current policy but you feel should be > allowed? For the record, I think "posts to planet postgresql must > be postgresql related" is a pretty darn good rule, and one I'm loath > to change. What exact change are you proposing anyway? I'm not quite able > to parse the last sentence in your first paragraph. I think I can - and it would be an extremely bad policy imho. It would allow anyone "in the community" to post anything they wanted because they were "in the community". On the other hand, I'm sure our marketing people would love that... -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 07/14/2011 12:48 AM, Dave Page wrote: > On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:56 AM, Greg Sabino Mullane<greg@turnstep.com> wrote: >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: RIPEMD160 >> >> >>> I think we need to change the posting policy of planet. It seems >>> entirely too restrictive. Now I don't think we should go reddit with it >>> but we are all people here and we are all part of this community. Should >>> the majority of posts to planet be postgresql related? Of course but >>> seriously, can we have a little fun too? Can we not remember that as >>> people in this community that actually makes the post relevant to >>> postgresql? >>> >>> In short can we stop getting our boxers in a bunch about everything and >>> remember to have some damn fun? For atheists sake, slow down on the >>> caffeine and go to your medical dispensary for some inhaled herbal pain >>> killer. >> >> I'm guessing this is directed at me, so can you show me/us some example >> posts that are against the current policy but you feel should be >> allowed? For the record, I think "posts to planet postgresql must >> be postgresql related" is a pretty darn good rule, and one I'm loath >> to change. What exact change are you proposing anyway? I'm not quite able >> to parse the last sentence in your first paragraph. > > I think I can - and it would be an extremely bad policy imho. It would > allow anyone "in the community" to post anything they wanted because > they were "in the community". > > On the other hand, I'm sure our marketing people would love that... Hahhaha that isn't quite what I meant but fair point. I was more leaning toward how planet.debian.org works where you will read about all kinds of technology related stuff. For example this post: http://journal.dedasys.com/2011/07/14/the-long-tail-of-the-clued-in Is not postgresql related but it would (IMO) still be valuable on planet. Another example would be this blog post, which planet wouldn't aggregate: http://www.commandprompt.com/blogs/alex_shulgin/2011/03/when_too_smart_becomes_stupid_fixing_a_ror_pgsql_driver_issue/ The argument we got was that it was rails related, not postgresql releated. Seriously? And, Marketing people are not in the community. I don't see any marketing people contributing to PostgreSQL. JD > > -- Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development The PostgreSQL Conference - http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ @cmdpromptinc - @postgresconf - 509-416-6579
On Thursday, July 14, 2011, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > On 07/14/2011 12:48 AM, Dave Page wrote: > > Another example would be this blog post, which planet wouldn't aggregate: > > http://www.commandprompt.com/blogs/alex_shulgin/2011/03/when_too_smart_becomes_stupid_fixing_a_ror_pgsql_driver_issue/ > > The argument we got was that it was rails related, not postgresql releated. Seriously? From who? I can't see why we wouldn't accept that. > And, Marketing people are not in the community. I don't see any marketing people contributing to PostgreSQL. No, but they'd love to get me to blog about my work on proprietary EDB stuff. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Can we not remember that as people in this community that actually > makes the post relevant to postgresql? I look forward to being able to direct a less filtered version of my blog into the Planet if PostgreSQL relevancy stops being a requirement. You all are going to love my weekly posts about new prog metal bands I've discovered. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD
On 15 July 2011 12:29, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I look forward to being able to direct a less filtered version of my blog > into the Planet if PostgreSQL relevancy stops being a requirement. You all > are going to love my weekly posts about new prog metal bands I've > discovered. Actually, that does sound interesting =) metalheads.postgresql.org? Cheers, BJ
On 07/14/2011 07:29 PM, Greg Smith wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> Can we not remember that as people in this community that actually >> makes the post relevant to postgresql? > > I look forward to being able to direct a less filtered version of my > blog into the Planet if PostgreSQL relevancy stops being a requirement. > You all are going to love my weekly posts about new prog metal bands > I've discovered. > Well I would. I can always chose to not read a post if I don't find it interesting. It is that whole free will thing. -- Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development The PostgreSQL Conference - http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ @cmdpromptinc - @postgresconf - 509-416-6579
On tor, 2011-07-14 at 20:51 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 07/14/2011 07:29 PM, Greg Smith wrote: > > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> Can we not remember that as people in this community that actually > >> makes the post relevant to postgresql? > > > > I look forward to being able to direct a less filtered version of my > > blog into the Planet if PostgreSQL relevancy stops being a requirement. > > You all are going to love my weekly posts about new prog metal bands > > I've discovered. > > > > Well I would. I can always chose to not read a post if I don't find it > interesting. It is that whole free will thing. I think there could be value in having both a strictly focused planet and a more broader one. But I wouldn't want to *replace* the former by the latter.
Well I would. I can always chose to not read a post if I don't find it interesting. It is that whole free will thing. > I think there could be value in having both a strictly focused planet > and a more broader one. But I wouldn't want to *replace* the former by > the latter. What if we had something like planet.postgresql.org/backpage where it was unfiltered? JD > >
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > I think there could be value in having both a strictly focused planet > and a more broader one. But I wouldn't want to *replace* the former by > the latter. It is interesting, but the policy about "postgres-relevant" helps avoid conflicts about content of other types. I don't want to get more into the business of fielding questions about appropriateness of content on a more general feed, or censoring inappropriate content. Or, honestly, defining what appropriate would be on a broader planet. Seems like an epic bikeshedding opportunity. -selena -- http://chesnok.com
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 07:34, Selena Deckelmann <selena@chesnok.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > >> I think there could be value in having both a strictly focused planet >> and a more broader one. But I wouldn't want to *replace* the former by >> the latter. A separate feed would be a *requirement* if we wanted to do this, IMHO. The current feed is syndicated on the frontpage of the main website, we certainly want to keep that content PostgreSQL-centric.. > It is interesting, but the policy about "postgres-relevant" helps > avoid conflicts about content of other types. I don't want to get more > into the business of fielding questions about appropriateness of > content on a more general feed, or censoring inappropriate content. > Or, honestly, defining what appropriate would be on a broader planet. > > Seems like an epic bikeshedding opportunity. +1(00000). -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 20:14, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > On Thursday, July 14, 2011, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: >> On 07/14/2011 12:48 AM, Dave Page wrote: >> >> Another example would be this blog post, which planet wouldn't aggregate: >> >> http://www.commandprompt.com/blogs/alex_shulgin/2011/03/when_too_smart_becomes_stupid_fixing_a_ror_pgsql_driver_issue/ >> >> The argument we got was that it was rails related, not postgresql releated. Seriously? > > From who? I can't see why we wouldn't accept that. Yeah, I'd like to know that too. I searched what I could find in my archives of the planet@ list, and saw nothing. Because I think we *should* allow that type of post, it certainly is postgresql related enough. IMHO, of course. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > What if we had something like planet.postgresql.org/backpage where it > was unfiltered? This is a completely reasonable idea that is doomed to die for lack of resources. Everyone who works on keeping the Planet running is already way too busy with keeping multiple aspects of the Postgres community alive. That can be justified by everyone involved by saying "this is an important thing to the community". The minute you slide away from that, where you're working on things that aren't extremely clearly focused on PostgreSQL, none of the people currently doing Planet development/admin time have any incentive to work on that. This is also why the policies are even starting to get enforced more. Anyone who doesn't follow them just gobbles up a bunch of admin time, as those same admins have to field complaints from users (which are happening about all this) over the feed not delivering what it promised to. The idea of having a second, parallel set of policies to worry about for another feed, one whose stated purpose is to mix in less PostgreSQL oriented content, just doesn't make sense in any way for people doing the work here. And if you try to lodge a complain about the admin/moderation team not doing exactly what you'd like...well I did that recently, and it turns out the only way to make a change here is join it and volunteer some time to work on the problems. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD