Thread: Out-of-policy Planet post?
WWW, "8 New Oracle compatibility features in EnterpriseDB PPAS 9.2 Beta" Last I checked, the end result of discussion on this list was that no blogging about proprietary forks of PostgreSQL was permitted on Planet.It's a policy I disagreed with, but if that's ourpolicy, we should follow it. Since Ras seems to be a new blogger, someone from WWW should just inform him of the policy and remove the post. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:14:53AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > WWW, > > "8 New Oracle compatibility features in EnterpriseDB PPAS 9.2 Beta" > > Last I checked, the end result of discussion on this list was that no > blogging about proprietary forks of PostgreSQL was permitted on Planet. > It's a policy I disagreed with, but if that's our policy, we should > follow it. > > Since Ras seems to be a new blogger, someone from WWW should just inform > him of the policy and remove the post. Yes, I assumed someone had already done that, so I didn't say anything, but I agree. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:14:53AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >> WWW, >> >> "8 New Oracle compatibility features in EnterpriseDB PPAS 9.2 Beta" >> >> Last I checked, the end result of discussion on this list was that no >> blogging about proprietary forks of PostgreSQL was permitted on Planet. >> It's a policy I disagreed with, but if that's our policy, we should >> follow it. >> >> Since Ras seems to be a new blogger, someone from WWW should just inform >> him of the policy and remove the post. > > Yes, I assumed someone had already done that, so I didn't say anything, > but I agree. Does it actually violate the policy though? It's pretty darn vague... I agree it's very much a borderline so somebody should probably send him a warning about it, but I'm not sure it's actually a strict violation? -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 08:57:02PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:14:53AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> WWW, > >> > >> "8 New Oracle compatibility features in EnterpriseDB PPAS 9.2 Beta" > >> > >> Last I checked, the end result of discussion on this list was that no > >> blogging about proprietary forks of PostgreSQL was permitted on Planet. > >> It's a policy I disagreed with, but if that's our policy, we should > >> follow it. > >> > >> Since Ras seems to be a new blogger, someone from WWW should just inform > >> him of the policy and remove the post. > > > > Yes, I assumed someone had already done that, so I didn't say anything, > > but I agree. > > Does it actually violate the policy though? It's pretty darn vague... > I agree it's very much a borderline so somebody should probably send > him a warning about it, but I'm not sure it's actually a strict > violation? Would the post be interesting to anyone not using the EDB commercial product? I didn't think it would be. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 08:57:02PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:14:53AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >> >> WWW, >> >> >> >> "8 New Oracle compatibility features in EnterpriseDB PPAS 9.2 Beta" >> >> >> >> Last I checked, the end result of discussion on this list was that no >> >> blogging about proprietary forks of PostgreSQL was permitted on Planet. >> >> It's a policy I disagreed with, but if that's our policy, we should >> >> follow it. >> >> >> >> Since Ras seems to be a new blogger, someone from WWW should just inform >> >> him of the policy and remove the post. >> > >> > Yes, I assumed someone had already done that, so I didn't say anything, >> > but I agree. >> >> Does it actually violate the policy though? It's pretty darn vague... >> I agree it's very much a borderline so somebody should probably send >> him a warning about it, but I'm not sure it's actually a strict >> violation? > > Would the post be interesting to anyone not using the EDB commercial > product? I didn't think it would be. Well, the policy says "All blogs should be about PostgreSQL or closely related technologies.". Which it kind of is, no? And it's not advertising, I think. Though I guess it might qualify as an ad, yes. I've hidden the post for now. Can someone write up a nice explanation to the author on why? -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
> I've hidden the post for now. Can someone write up a nice explanation > to the author on why? Suggested text: ===================== According to the policy at http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Planet_PostgreSQL, it is not permissable to post blogs to Planet which cover only a proprietary fork of PostgreSQL, and are not relevant to open source PostgreSQL. As such, your post has been removed from Planet. Your post discussed only features of PPAS which are not available in open source Postgres. As a way of judging whether your post is appropriate in the future, read the FAQ item "What constitutes an advertisement?". ===================== FWIW, I think that that wiki page does not make it clear enough what's permissable for forks and commercial services, especially for a non-english-speaker. I'd like to try editing it; permission to do so? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On 10/10/12 11:19 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > FWIW, I think that that wiki page does not make it clear enough what's > permissable for forks and commercial services, especially for a > non-english-speaker. I'd like to try editing it; permission to do so? Anyone? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 02:18:09PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 10/10/12 11:19 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > > FWIW, I think that that wiki page does not make it clear enough what's > > permissable for forks and commercial services, especially for a > > non-english-speaker. I'd like to try editing it; permission to do so? > > Anyone? Sure, go for it! -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +