Thread: Training approval policy on pg.org
Hi folks, Thom Brown warned me today that a company cannot submit more than 4 training events per quarter. http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/NewsEventsApproval#Training_Events I wasn't aware of that limit and I'm quite surprise. I can't see what's the reason behind it. Dalibo is facing a huge growth of the PostgreSQL training demand in France and we trying to answer that with 40+ trainings shceduled in 2013. I guess the same kind of growth is happening elsewhere to other companies. Overall it's a "good thing". I think that the more training events are listed on postgresql.org, the better it is for our community. It shows that the community is alive. It shows that user have the choice. Is it possible to remove that limit or at least to increase it to a level that matches the reality of the PostgreSQL Training market. Like 15 or 20 per quarter ? -- damien
On 01/10/2013 03:27 AM, damien clochard wrote: > > Hi folks, > > Thom Brown warned me today that a company cannot submit more than 4 > training events per quarter. > > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/NewsEventsApproval#Training_Events > > I wasn't aware of that limit and I'm quite surprise. I can't see what's > the reason behind it. Dalibo is facing a huge growth of the PostgreSQL > training demand in France and we trying to answer that with 40+ > trainings shceduled in 2013. I guess the same kind of growth is > happening elsewhere to other companies. It is likely because we have in the past had lots of people advertise training in bulk and then end up canceling most of them. JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC @cmdpromptinc - 509-416-6579
> It is likely because we have in the past had lots of people advertise > training in bulk and then end up canceling most of them. We did. The policy was specifically to address a couple of companies who were listing a training event every week, in order to upstage other training companies. I'll also add that the RSS-feed structure of the events feed doesn't really lend itself to listing 10-20 training events from various companies per month. They'll completely swamp the non-training events.If it's our goal to list every legit training eventfrom any company, then I think we need a different mechanism for listing training events. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > >> It is likely because we have in the past had lots of people advertise >> training in bulk and then end up canceling most of them. > > We did. The policy was specifically to address a couple of companies > who were listing a training event every week, in order to upstage other > training companies. Yes. An honest question to Damien though - do you actually expect to *run* all these training sessions, or are you basicaly doing the same thing - settings up lots of options and then plan to run the most popular ones? > I'll also add that the RSS-feed structure of the events feed doesn't > really lend itself to listing 10-20 training events from various > companies per month. They'll completely swamp the non-training events. > If it's our goal to list every legit training event from any company, > then I think we need a different mechanism for listing training events. Given that we don't include training events in the RSS feed, I doubt that's a problem in reality :P And we already changed the view on the frontpage for that reason. --Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Le 10/01/2013 19:14, Magnus Hagander a écrit : > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> >>> It is likely because we have in the past had lots of people advertise >>> training in bulk and then end up canceling most of them. >> >> We did. The policy was specifically to address a couple of companies >> who were listing a training event every week, in order to upstage other >> training companies. > > Yes. > > An honest question to Damien though - do you actually expect to *run* > all these training sessions, or are you basicaly doing the same thing > - settings up lots of options and then plan to run the most popular > ones? > Short answer is "Yes I expect to run most of these training sessions". Here's why : First of all, every session I've submitted is "real" in the sense that you can find it on our website (http://www.dalibo.com/formations) and on our resellers catalogs... We don't invent fake trainings just for fun. To be honest, we don't really care about other training companies because we're operating on a specific market (French-speaking Europe) where we face little competition. So basically we're not submitting trainings on pg.org to upstage anyone, we just want to let people know what we are doing. About training cancellation : last year we planned approx. 30 public sessions and actually run approx. 20 sessions. That's a 33% cancellation rate, which is not so bad for training company in fact. For 2013, we've made a lot of strategic changes to lower that rate and we're planning to have a 20% cancellation rate. (I can't be more specific about what we did to achieve that sorry) In the meantime, we're facing an average growth of 30% on the Postgres training market in France every year since 2009 and I don't see that changing in 2013. Once again I can't post more details on this list. That alone makes me think that we will run 33 sessions among the 42 we have planned. That being said, I don't see why submitting "unlikely sessions" should be a problem at all. For instance, we trying new things this year such as some PostGIS trainings (with Oslandia) and a couple sessions in Brussels (with Open DB Team). I can't really say if this is gonna work or fail, because it's new for us... It's a test and it's exactly in cases like this that we need to publish the sessions on pg.org. It's a basic chicken-egg situation : you need a minimum number of attendees to run a training session. Noboby will register if you don't plan at least a few sessions. When you try new trainings, you have a high cancellation rate. I understand there might have been a problem before with a couple of trolls posting too many unlikely sessions... But this is not what we are doing here. We don't believe in the Google pagerank religion. We suck at SEO. We don't need to upstage anyone. We just want to let people know what we plan to do. If that's not possible on postgresql.org, well nevermind. We'll find something else to do with our time :-)
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 9:38 PM, damien clochard <damien@dalibo.info> wrote: > Le 10/01/2013 19:14, Magnus Hagander a écrit : >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: >>> >>>> It is likely because we have in the past had lots of people advertise >>>> training in bulk and then end up canceling most of them. >>> >>> We did. The policy was specifically to address a couple of companies >>> who were listing a training event every week, in order to upstage other >>> training companies. >> >> Yes. >> >> An honest question to Damien though - do you actually expect to *run* >> all these training sessions, or are you basicaly doing the same thing >> - settings up lots of options and then plan to run the most popular >> ones? >> > > Short answer is "Yes I expect to run most of these training sessions". That's pretty cool, actually. > Here's why : > > > First of all, every session I've submitted is "real" in the sense that > you can find it on our website (http://www.dalibo.com/formations) and on > our resellers catalogs... We don't invent fake trainings just for fun. Just to be clear. I *never* meant to indicate that you would be inventing fake trainings in order to make things "look better" or anything. If it came across as that, I apologize. > That being said, I don't see why submitting "unlikely sessions" should > be a problem at all. For instance, we trying new things this year such > as some PostGIS trainings (with Oslandia) and a couple sessions in > Brussels (with Open DB Team). I can't really say if this is gonna work > or fail, because it's new for us... It's a test and it's exactly in > cases like this that we need to publish the sessions on pg.org. It's a > basic chicken-egg situation : you need a minimum number of attendees to > run a training session. Noboby will register if you don't plan at least > a few sessions. When you try new trainings, you have a high cancellation > rate. I agree it's not necessarily a bad thing, but the important point with it is that we treat everybody equally. > I understand there might have been a problem before with a couple of > trolls posting too many unlikely sessions... But this is not what we are > doing here. We don't believe in the Google pagerank religion. We suck at > SEO. We don't need to upstage anyone. > > We just want to let people know what we plan to do. If that's not > possible on postgresql.org, well nevermind. We'll find something else to > do with our time :-) Nah, I think we need a policy that actually helps people (both providers and consumers), without being abuse:able. Not entirely sure what it is. Maybe we can just increase the numbers now and it won't be a problem, because the market has matured. --Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Jan 10, 2013, at 3:48 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 9:38 PM, damien clochard <damien@dalibo.info> wrote: >> Le 10/01/2013 19:14, Magnus Hagander a écrit : >>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> It is likely because we have in the past had lots of people advertise >>>>> training in bulk and then end up canceling most of them. >>>> >>>> We did. The policy was specifically to address a couple of companies >>>> who were listing a training event every week, in order to upstage other >>>> training companies. >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>> An honest question to Damien though - do you actually expect to *run* >>> all these training sessions, or are you basicaly doing the same thing >>> - settings up lots of options and then plan to run the most popular >>> ones? >>> >> I understand there might have been a problem before with a couple of >> trolls posting too many unlikely sessions... But this is not what we are >> doing here. We don't believe in the Google pagerank religion. We suck at >> SEO. We don't need to upstage anyone. >> >> We just want to let people know what we plan to do. If that's not >> possible on postgresql.org, well nevermind. We'll find something else to >> do with our time :-) > > Nah, I think we need a policy that actually helps people (both > providers and consumers), without being abuse:able. Not entirely sure > what it is. Maybe we can just increase the numbers now and it won't be > a problem, because the market has matured. Earlier in the thread, Damien suggested allowing 15-20 / quarter. Why not start at 10 /quarter and see what happens? Jonathan
Hi everyone, Il 10/01/13 21:38, damien clochard ha scritto: > So basically we're not submitting trainings on pg.org to upstage > anyone, we just want to let people know what we are doing. <snip> My point of view is that, as things stand currently, this is a false problem. Publishing of training events (contrary to what happens with conferences/community events) does not harm anyone if the publisher is a company that is considered to be reliable. Nobody gets bombed with emails or spam, the training events simply sit there, in a separate page. On one side we might want to limit the number of events, but in any case I am sure there will always be people complaining. We could base it on meritocracy, for instance using the sponsors page, but I am afraid controversies will be even more frequent (as that page is not up to date). On the other hand though, we cannot do anything but observe the growth of Postgres demand - with satisfaction, pride and positive mind. So, I stand next to Damien here. I don't see any particular problem with having a higher number of courses allowed in that page, even though I think we should limit that (but set it high). In Italy we are experiencing a similar trend and we currently have a week of courses every month. Sure, we can't promise that they won't be cancelled, but ... who can? And if we don't publish them, who's going to come ever? I think this is one of the duties of the postgresql.org website. Help companies, as well as communities, spread the word of Postgres. And training plays a crucial role in this. Postgresql.org is the main point of contact for new users and newcomers of Postgres, and they need to know who's offering training. It is a service the community delivers to them. So: I'd go for a high value, such as 10 courses a month per organisation. Cheers, Gabriele -- Gabriele Bartolini - 2ndQuadrant Italia PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support gabriele.bartolini@2ndQuadrant.it |www.2ndQuadrant.it
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:27 AM, damien clochard <damien@dalibo.info> wrote: > Hi folks, > > Thom Brown warned me today that a company cannot submit more than 4 > training events per quarter. > > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/NewsEventsApproval#Training_Events > That seems to low, specially for a Platinum Sponsor. What about 5 per month that will make 15 per quarter just not all of them at once. -- Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte 24x7 y capacitación Phone: +593 4 5107566 Cell: +593 987171157
> My point of view is that, as things stand currently, this is a false > problem. Publishing of training events (contrary to what happens with > conferences/community events) does not harm anyone if the publisher is a > company that is considered to be reliable. Nobody gets bombed with > emails or spam, the training events simply sit there, in a separate page. It's not a false problem. That policy was created in specific response to a specific problem from a company which (as far as I know) still exists and will return to abusing our system if we let them. We probably want a new policy, but it needs to be one which does not allow casual abuse. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Il 10/01/13 23:54, Josh Berkus ha scritto:<br /></div><blockquote cite="mid:50EF46C0.7060204@agliodbs.com"type="cite"> It's not a false problem. That policy was created in specific responseto a specific problem from a company which (as far as I know) still exists and will return to abusing our systemif we let them.</blockquote> What I meant is that the limitation is probably worse than that particular abuse. Also,Magnus confirms that after that, the way events are shown has been changed.<br /><br /> I'd agree to limit invasivesubmissions (such as emails and home page communications), but frankly I still believe that the current limitationis obsolete and probably also damaging.<br /><br /> However, in case you probably missed that part in my email,I came with a proposal of 10 courses per month per organisation. A high number, but still a upper limit.<br /><blockquotecite="mid:50EF46C0.7060204@agliodbs.com" type="cite"><pre wrap="">We probably want a new policy, but it needsto be one which does not allow casual abuse. </pre></blockquote> In Italy there is a saying: "Fatta la legge, trovato l'inganno" ( every law has a loophole). I thinkwe are better off using our time and energy in positive activities, and helping healthy, dynamic and active companiespromote Postgres through training.<br /><br /> Also, who is willing to go and check if an event is really an abuse?How would you judge that?<br /><br /> Thank you.<br /><br /> Ciao,<br /> Gabriele<br /><pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--Gabriele Bartolini - 2ndQuadrant ItaliaPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"href="mailto:gabriele.bartolini@2ndQuadrant.it">gabriele.bartolini@2ndQuadrant.it</a> | <aclass="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.2ndQuadrant.it">www.2ndQuadrant.it</a> </pre>
Hi Jaime, Il 10/01/13 23:12, Jaime Casanova ha scritto: > That seems to low, specially for a Platinum Sponsor. What about 5 per > month that will make 15 per quarter just not all of them at once. I think there is a reason for that, and maybe Damien can confirm it or not, as I have done this activity for several time in the past. When you plan your course schedule, you either do it for a semester or even a year. It is a very boring activity to do, so you just try and get it done all together at once. :) Ciao, Gabriele -- Gabriele Bartolini - 2ndQuadrant Italia PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support gabriele.bartolini@2ndQuadrant.it |www.2ndQuadrant.it
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 05:12:54PM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:27 AM, damien clochard <damien@dalibo.info> wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > Thom Brown warned me today that a company cannot submit more than 4 > > training events per quarter. > > > > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/NewsEventsApproval#Training_Events > > > > That seems to low, specially for a Platinum Sponsor. > What about 5 per month that will make 15 per quarter just not all of > them at once. Platinum Sponsor? What is that? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
>> That seems to low, specially for a Platinum Sponsor. >> What about 5 per month that will make 15 per quarter just not all of >> them at once. > > Platinum Sponsor? What is that? > To date, we haven't tied approval polices to sponsor levels. I wouldn't be opposed to doing so, but it's not our current policy. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 06:20:25PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > > >> That seems to low, specially for a Platinum Sponsor. > >> What about 5 per month that will make 15 per quarter just not all of > >> them at once. > > > > Platinum Sponsor? What is that? > > > > To date, we haven't tied approval polices to sponsor levels. I wouldn't > be opposed to doing so, but it's not our current policy. Wow, we actually give metal designations for community sponsors: http://www.postgresql.org/about/sponsors/ I had no idea. I also agree that tying things to sponsorship might cause problems. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 06:20:25PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: >> >> >> That seems to low, specially for a Platinum Sponsor. >> >> What about 5 per month that will make 15 per quarter just not all of >> >> them at once. >> > >> > Platinum Sponsor? What is that? >> > >> >> To date, we haven't tied approval polices to sponsor levels. I wouldn't >> be opposed to doing so, but it's not our current policy. > > Wow, we actually give metal designations for community sponsors: > [...] > > I also agree that tying things to sponsorship might > cause problems. > mmm... we have done it before... and no, i don't think that showing some kind of preference for those showing commitment with the project is bad. anyway, my suggestion (5 per month, 15 per quarter) wasn't tied to sponsorship... only my comment, about how low that value is, was -- Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte 24x7 y capacitación Phone: +593 4 5107566 Cell: +593 987171157
Le 11/01/2013 00:26, Gabriele Bartolini a écrit : > Hi Jaime, > > Il 10/01/13 23:12, Jaime Casanova ha scritto: >> That seems to low, specially for a Platinum Sponsor. What about 5 per >> month that will make 15 per quarter just not all of them at once. > > I think there is a reason for that, and maybe Damien can confirm it or > not, as I have done this activity for several time in the past. > > When you plan your course schedule, you either do it for a semester or > even a year. It is a very boring activity to do, so you just try and get > it done all together at once. :) > Yes. We need to schedule our trainings on a yearly basis, because our resellers need integrate those dates in their own catalogs and websites. At least this is how things work in France, the French training market is very specific for many reasons... And yes pushing the dates to pg.org (and elsewhere) is quite a boring activity ! So I try to do it all at once. This is also why I asked for a "clone" button a few week ago ;) -- damien
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:39 AM, damien clochard <damien@dalibo.info> wrote: > Le 11/01/2013 00:26, Gabriele Bartolini a écrit : >> Hi Jaime, >> >> Il 10/01/13 23:12, Jaime Casanova ha scritto: >>> That seems to low, specially for a Platinum Sponsor. What about 5 per >>> month that will make 15 per quarter just not all of them at once. >> >> I think there is a reason for that, and maybe Damien can confirm it or >> not, as I have done this activity for several time in the past. >> >> When you plan your course schedule, you either do it for a semester or >> even a year. It is a very boring activity to do, so you just try and get >> it done all together at once. :) >> > > Yes. We need to schedule our trainings on a yearly basis, because our > resellers need integrate those dates in their own catalogs and websites. > At least this is how things work in France, the French training market > is very specific for many reasons... > > And yes pushing the dates to pg.org (and elsewhere) is quite a boring > activity ! So I try to do it all at once. This is also why I asked for a > "clone" button a few week ago ;) That would indeed be very useful. I'm just waiting for a patch to review ;) --Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Folks, If we're going to allow a much higher volume of training events, training needs both its own RSS feed and its own admin interface. Training already outnumbers public events by 4 to 1 and makes our events RSS feed pretty useless for anyone who's not looking for training. And the admin/moderation is a PITA. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > Folks, > > If we're going to allow a much higher volume of training events, > training needs both its own RSS feed and its own admin interface. > Training already outnumbers public events by 4 to 1 and makes our events > RSS feed pretty useless for anyone who's not looking for training. I already told you earlier in this thread that training events aren't *in* the RSS feed. There is nothing to remove. > And the admin/moderation is a PITA. The event moderation already has the ability to filter by training events, though it's not filtered in the default view. And the ability to do bulk approval, should it be needed. --Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
> I already told you earlier in this thread that training events aren't > *in* the RSS feed. There is nothing to remove. Sorry, I missed that! Too much traffic on this thread. Thanks. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
Il 14/01/13 18:52, Josh Berkus ha scritto: > Sorry, I missed that! Too much traffic on this thread. Thanks. So, I am just trying to get to a decision, given that the events queue for moderation is quite big. I confirm my proposal to raise this to 10 per month per organisation. If you prefer, we can tie this to sponsor companies only - but that requires that the sponsorship page is regularly maintained. Cheers, Gabriele -- Gabriele Bartolini - 2ndQuadrant Italia PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support gabriele.bartolini@2ndQuadrant.it |www.2ndQuadrant.it
> I confirm my proposal to raise this to 10 per month per organisation. If > you prefer, we can tie this to sponsor companies only - but that > requires that the sponsorship page is regularly maintained. I suggest that a limit of 10 per month is effectively no limit; as a moderator, there is no way I'm going to count how many training events were in the last 30 days. So if we're going to lift the limit entirely, let's just go ahead and do that. If we're going to lift the limit, though, I'd like a suggestion on how we deal with companies like Certfirst in the future. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On 01/15/2013 02:30 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> I confirm my proposal to raise this to 10 per month per organisation. If >> you prefer, we can tie this to sponsor companies only - but that >> requires that the sponsorship page is regularly maintained. > > I suggest that a limit of 10 per month is effectively no limit; as a > moderator, there is no way I'm going to count how many training events > were in the last 30 days. So if we're going to lift the limit entirely, > let's just go ahead and do that. > > If we're going to lift the limit, though, I'd like a suggestion on how > we deal with companies like Certfirst in the future. Oh, and let's just go ahead and approve the pending training events for the next 4 weeks so that we can discuss this some more without having time pressure, since I don't think there's an easy answer to the above. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
Il 15/01/13 23:30, Josh Berkus ha scritto: > I suggest that a limit of 10 per month is effectively no limit; as a > moderator, there is no way I'm going to count how many training events > were in the last 30 days. With my inconsistent experience as moderator (I do it when I can), I find it already hard to check current limitations, to be honest. And I am pretty sure I am not alone with this feeling. > So if we're going to lift the limit entirely, let's just go ahead and > do that. If we're going to lift the limit, though, I'd like a > suggestion on how we deal with companies like Certfirst in the future. The 10 limit per month is actually something that can be used to deal with this kind of companies. As I previously said, if 10 is too much, let's start with 5 courses (even though it can be easily surrounded). Cheers, Gabriele -- Gabriele Bartolini - 2ndQuadrant Italia PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support gabriele.bartolini@2ndQuadrant.it |www.2ndQuadrant.it
Il 15/01/13 23:32, Josh Berkus ha scritto: > Oh, and let's just go ahead and approve the pending training events > for the next 4 weeks so that we can discuss this some more without > having time pressure, since I don't think there's an easy answer to > the above. Ok, I have approved courses until the end of February. Cheers, Gabriele -- Gabriele Bartolini - 2ndQuadrant Italia PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support gabriele.bartolini@2ndQuadrant.it |www.2ndQuadrant.it
Following a quick discussion with Magnus, I've approved all the rest. It's clear that the vast majority of folks here support allowing much more training than we currently do, and as it stands, the policy actually says the moderators may reject more than 4 posts per quarter at their discretion, i.e. accept by default. On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Gabriele Bartolini <gabriele.bartolini@2ndquadrant.it> wrote: > Il 15/01/13 23:32, Josh Berkus ha scritto: > >> Oh, and let's just go ahead and approve the pending training events for >> the next 4 weeks so that we can discuss this some more without having time >> pressure, since I don't think there's an easy answer to the above. > > Ok, I have approved courses until the end of February. > > > Cheers, > Gabriele > > -- > Gabriele Bartolini - 2ndQuadrant Italia > PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support > gabriele.bartolini@2ndQuadrant.it | www.2ndQuadrant.it > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-www mailing list (pgsql-www@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-www -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 01/31/2013 08:03 AM, Dave Page wrote: > Following a quick discussion with Magnus, I've approved all the rest. > It's clear that the vast majority of folks here support allowing much > more training than we currently do, and as it stands, the policy > actually says the moderators may reject more than 4 posts per quarter > at their discretion, i.e. accept by default. Well, more training than we currently do *except for one training provider*. I was just checking, and that provider is still posting. I'd like, as a moderator, to stick to the policy that we reject more than 4 posts per quarter from CertFirst due to the simple reason that, as reported, they cancel/reschedule a high proportion of their trainings. For that matter, if we received a similar report about any other training provider, I think we should follow the same policy. Works for everybody? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > On 01/31/2013 08:03 AM, Dave Page wrote: >> Following a quick discussion with Magnus, I've approved all the rest. >> It's clear that the vast majority of folks here support allowing much >> more training than we currently do, and as it stands, the policy >> actually says the moderators may reject more than 4 posts per quarter >> at their discretion, i.e. accept by default. > > Well, more training than we currently do *except for one training > provider*. I was just checking, and that provider is still posting. > I'd like, as a moderator, to stick to the policy that we reject more > than 4 posts per quarter from CertFirst due to the simple reason that, > as reported, they cancel/reschedule a high proportion of their trainings. > > For that matter, if we received a similar report about any other > training provider, I think we should follow the same policy. Works for > everybody? Works for me. Now whether we'll all remember when it matters of course... -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company