Thread: Why doesn't my mail appear on the pgsql-announce list?
Hello, I sent the following mail on April 18 and 22, but the mail doesn't appear on the list. Could you let me the reason? Theonly thing I can guess is that the content is not appropriate for the ML and the moderator didn't allow it. Regards Takayuki Tsunakawa ---------- Subject: Please take part in the PostgreSQL ecosystem survey # I would apologize if this is a re-post in this ML. # It seems that I failed to post here. We are announcing the start of PostgreSQL ecosystem survey. By filling out the following survey form, please let us knowwhat software you need in order to adopt PostgreSQL in wider range. The form comprises three questions: software/usage/industrycategory, a specific software, and a free comment on the interoperability issue of the software. Your request will encourage us to improve the interoperability of PostgreSQL to make more software available with PostgreSQL. Survey form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Ueq4Z9MYJLv-gCp_UrPXENdSH6jXtqR0zz5F1W3Qqvo/viewform You can see the survey result in real time in the spreadsheets below. Survey response sheets https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sxd--agLVrFbn7M3YCqFTR812MrBExiyAM_4qVf9trk/pubhtml We really appreciate your cooperation. Thanks. Community discussion http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/471DBBEFA9CD4C26B83E7FAEDCB7482B@tunaPC BACKGROUND ============================================================ Thanks to the long and hard effort by the community, PostgreSQL has been evolving to be a really great software comparableto existing strong commercial products. According to the following article, open source databases are gainingmore popularity enough to influence the database market. Open source threatens to eat the database market http://www.infoworld.com/article/2916057/open-source-software/open-source-threatens-to-eat-the-database-market.html [Excerpt] "Though the proprietary RDBMS market grew at a sluggish 5.4 percent in 2014, the open source database market grew 31 percentto hit $562 million." "As Gartner highlights in a recent research report, open source databases now consume 25 percent of relational database usage." On the other hand, there is a gulf between the two top popular databases -- Oracle and MySQL -- and PostgreSQL. They arenearly five times more popular than PostgreSQL. DB-Engines Ranking http://db-engines.com/en/ranking Yes, I understand this ranking doesn't necessarily reflect the actual use, but I also don't think the ranking is far fromthe real popularity. PROBLEM: INSUFFICIENT AND/OR UNKNOWN INTEROPERABILITY ============================================================ What will be necessary for more users to use PostgreSQL? One challenge is interoperability, or ecosystem in other words,which is to increase the number of software which supports PostgreSQL. To take advantage of the trend of shift fromcommercial products to open source, PostgreSQL needs to interoperate with many software that are used together with thecommercial databases. The easily understandable target is Oracle, because it is anticipated that more users of Oracle will seek another databaseto avoid the expensive Oracle Standard Edition 2 and increasing maintenance costs. In addition, PostgreSQL has affinityfor Oracle. However, there is a problem. The number of software is very small that the users can know to interoperate with PostgreSQL. That is, when the users want to migrate from commercial databases to PostgreSQL, they can't get information onwhether they can continue to use their assets with PostgreSQL. Many applications might be interoperable through standardinterfaces like JDBC/ODBC, but the case is unknown. For example: * Only 24 open source projects are listed as interoperable. Open Source Projects Using PostgreSQL https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/OpenSource_Projects_Using_PostgreSQL * About 120 products are listed in the "Software Catalog" (excluding the ones like PostgreSQL extensions). But the numberwould drop down to about 100 if the members of the same product family are counted as one. http://www.postgresql.org/download/products/5-reporting-tools/ * Even EnterpriseDB has only 12 certified application vendors. http://www.enterprisedb.com/partner-programs/enterprisedb-certified-application-vendors * PostgreSQL Enterprise Consortium lists only about30 related products (Japanese only). https://www.pgecons.org/postgresql-info/business_sw/ * MySQL touts more than 2,000 ISV/OEM/VARs. http://www.mysql.com/oem/ Besides, in practice, more development efforts will probably be necessary to make PostgreSQL more interoperable with manysoftware products. For example, one customer asked me whether Arcserve can be used to back up PostgreSQL databases,but unfortunately I had to answer no. ACTION: VISUALIZE AND IMPROVE INTEROPERABILITY ============================================================ At the steering committee of PostgreSQL Enterprise Consortium (PGECons), I proposed starting the following activity. PGEConsis a Japanese non-profit organization to promote PostgreSQL for enterprise use. The members include NTT, SRA OSS,Inc. (Tatsuo Ishii runs), NEC, Hitachi, HP, Fujitsu (my company), etc. The committee concluded that we need to workin cooperation with the PostgreSQL community. * Attract and ask product/service vendors to support/use PostgreSQL. Provide technical assistance to those vendors as anorganization so that they can support PostgreSQL smoothly. If the vendors aren't proactive, we verify the interoperabilitywith their software by executing it. * Make a directory of software/services that can be used with PostgreSQL on the community web site (wiki.postgresql.org orwww.postgresql.org). Software/services vendors and PostgreSQL developers/users can edit this directory. This list notonly has the names of software and its vendors, but also other information such as the level of interoperability (certifiedby the vendor, or verified by the community/users) and remarks about configuration, tuning, and whatever usefulfor users. PostgreSQL Enterprise Consortium (PGECons) https://www.pgecons.org/en Regards Takayuki Tsunakawa
Takayuki, * Tsunakawa, Takayuki (tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com) wrote: > I sent the following mail on April 18 and 22, but the mail doesn't appear on the list. Could you let me the reason? Theonly thing I can guess is that the content is not appropriate for the ML and the moderator didn't allow it. My apologies, I thought someone had responded to you regarding this. The moderators have not approved it because it does not fall under any of the defined categories for acceptable mail to -announce. The -announce policy is here: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/NewsEventsApproval If you wish to have an exception made to that policy, then I believe it needs to come from -core. For my own 2c regarding the merits of this particular mail, I'm not sure that it should be allowed to -announce, even as an exception. Specifically, I believe that if we wish for a survey to be published then we should develop it as a community and provide a way to ensure that the responses are anonymous, but also published and kept. Note that postgresql.org already has the ability to host surveys and for users to respond to those surveys. Thanks! Stephen
Hello, Stephen, Thank you for your quick response. > The moderators have not approved it because it does not fall under any of > the defined categories for acceptable mail to -announce. The -announce > policy is here: > > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/NewsEventsApproval I didn't notice this page. Thanks. (But my mail seems to fall under " Major new advocacy effort"...) > If you wish to have an exception made to that policy, then I believe it > needs to come from -core. I'm OK as I could post to pgsql-advocacy successfully. > For my own 2c regarding the merits of this particular mail, I'm not sure > that it should be allowed to -announce, even as an exception. > Specifically, I believe that if we wish for a survey to be published then > we should develop it as a community and provide a way to ensure that the > responses are anonymous, but also published and kept. > > Note that postgresql.org already has the ability to host surveys and for > users to respond to those surveys. Yes, actually, I wanted to post the survey on postgresql.org, but I didn't know how. In addition, it seemed that postgresql.orgsurvey can contain only a single question. My survey requires three questions. What's more, the survey formneeds to allow respondents to add new choices to the multiple-choice question, and the second question needs to changebased on the first one. Those requirements made me choose Google Form and write some Google App Script. Regards Takayuki Tsunakawa
Takayuki, * Tsunakawa, Takayuki (tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com) wrote: > > The moderators have not approved it because it does not fall under any of > > the defined categories for acceptable mail to -announce. The -announce > > policy is here: > > > > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/NewsEventsApproval > > I didn't notice this page. Thanks. > (But my mail seems to fall under " Major new advocacy effort"...) That's under "PostgreSQL Core News". My understanding of that section is that it's for generally agreed to news from the core PostgreSQL community (which seems appropriate, given the rest of the items listed). In other words, were this discussed ahead of time on -advocacy, a consensus among the individuals on -advocacy reached, the survey put up postgresql.org, and just generally done through the community, then it would fall under that category. A posting of a survey from an independent organization doesn't fall under the "PostgreSQL Core News" category, as I read the policy. Consider what could happen if we were to allow this survey- we would be saying that we will allow surveys from more-or-less any organization to be posted to -announce. I don't think that's a very good policy to have. > > If you wish to have an exception made to that policy, then I believe it > > needs to come from -core. > > I'm OK as I could post to pgsql-advocacy successfully. There is not a specific policy for -advocacy, as far as I'm aware. I would point out that we do try to keep all of the lists on-topic, as a general rule. Your posting of this survey to -advocacy for discussion seems entirely appropriate to me. > > Note that postgresql.org already has the ability to host surveys and for > > users to respond to those surveys. > > Yes, actually, I wanted to post the survey on postgresql.org, but I didn't know how. In addition, it seemed that postgresql.orgsurvey can contain only a single question. My survey requires three questions. What's more, the survey formneeds to allow respondents to add new choices to the multiple-choice question, and the second question needs to changebased on the first one. Those requirements made me choose Google Form and write some Google App Script. I would suggest that you bring that up on -www as a feature request then, there may be others who are interested. Of course, I'm sure that a patch to add such capability would go that much farther. The source code for the website is available here: http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=pgweb.git;a=summary Note that the website is currently undergoing a redesign of the front-end, so those pieces are likely to change in the near future. The backend code is also being upgraded to Django 1.8. I don't know if that would present a problem or not for adding the capabilities you're asking for. Asking on -www is probably the right approach before you start implementing any changes to that code. Thanks! Stephen
On 25 Apr 2016, at 04:48, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: > Takayuki, > > * Tsunakawa, Takayuki (tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com) wrote: >>> The moderators have not approved it because it does not fall under any of >>> the defined categories for acceptable mail to -announce. The -announce >>> policy is here: >>> >>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/NewsEventsApproval >> >> I didn't notice this page. Thanks. >> (But my mail seems to fall under " Major new advocacy effort"...) > > That's under "PostgreSQL Core News". My understanding of that section > is that it's for generally agreed to news from the core PostgreSQL > community (which seems appropriate, given the rest of the items listed). > > In other words, were this discussed ahead of time on -advocacy, a > consensus among the individuals on -advocacy reached, the survey put > up postgresql.org, and just generally done through the community, then > it would fall under that category. > > A posting of a survey from an independent organization doesn't fall > under the "PostgreSQL Core News" category, as I read the policy. Hmmm. From the initial email (to -advocacy): "At the steering committee of PostgreSQL Enterprise Consortium (PGECons), I proposed starting the following activity. PGECons is a Japanese non-profit organization to promote PostgreSQL for enterprise use. The members include NTT, SRA OSS,Inc. (Tatsuo Ishii runs), NEC, Hitachi, HP, Fujitsu (my company), etc." So they're definitely already part of the greater PostgreSQL ecosystem. > Consider what could happen if we were to allow this survey- we would be > saying that we will allow surveys from more-or-less any organization to > be posted to -announce. Errr... why? We don't seem so inundated with surveys that we need to implement one of those (misguided) impersonal "we must treat everyone the same" policies. If some Evil Org comes along and wants us to do a survey that's borderline or outright crap... we'd tell them to get lost. ;) That's not the case here. :) >>> Note that postgresql.org already has the ability to host surveys and for >>> users to respond to those surveys. >> >> Yes, actually, I wanted to post the survey on postgresql.org, but I didn't know how. In addition, it seemed that postgresql.orgsurvey can contain only a single question. My survey requires three questions. What's more, the survey formneeds to allow respondents to add new choices to the multiple-choice question, and the second question needs to changebased on the first one. Those requirements made me choose Google Form and write some Google App Script. > > I would suggest that you bring that up on -www as a feature request > then, there may be others who are interested. Of course, I'm sure that > a patch to add such capability would go that much farther. The source > code for the website is available here: > > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=pgweb.git;a=summary > > Note that the website is currently undergoing a redesign of the > front-end, so those pieces are likely to change in the near future. > The backend code is also being upgraded to Django 1.8. I don't know if > that would present a problem or not for adding the capabilities you're > asking for. Asking on -www is probably the right approach before you > start implementing any changes to that code. Good points. Sounds like adding the extra functionality might make it suitable for future surveys, so they don't need to leverage google's infrastructure instead. Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift -- "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi
Justin, * Justin Clift (justin@postgresql.org) wrote: > On 25 Apr 2016, at 04:48, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: > > A posting of a survey from an independent organization doesn't fall > > under the "PostgreSQL Core News" category, as I read the policy. > > Hmmm. From the initial email (to -advocacy): > > "At the steering committee of PostgreSQL Enterprise Consortium (PGECons), > I proposed starting the following activity. PGECons is a Japanese > non-profit organization to promote PostgreSQL for enterprise use. The > members include NTT, SRA OSS, Inc. (Tatsuo Ishii runs), NEC, Hitachi, > HP, Fujitsu (my company), etc." > > So they're definitely already part of the greater PostgreSQL ecosystem. I don't believe that makes it PostgreSQL Core News. Note that under "Core News" are things like "PostgreSQL releases." A number of companies are part of the greater PostgreSQL ecosystem, but there is a specific independent category for that and certainly their releases of PostgreSQL-based products don't fall under Core News. > > Consider what could happen if we were to allow this survey- we would be > > saying that we will allow surveys from more-or-less any organization to > > be posted to -announce. > > Errr... why? We don't seem so inundated with surveys that we need to > implement one of those (misguided) impersonal "we must treat everyone the > same" policies. > If some Evil Org comes along and wants us to do a survey that's > borderline or outright crap... we'd tell them to get lost. ;) > > That's not the case here. :) A lot of companies in the broader PostgreSQL eco system *do* put out surveys and I'm sure they would love to be able to send those to -announce. To be clear, I'm not worried about spammers or Evil Orgs but rather the reasonable expectation from companies in the PG ecosystem that we'd approve their surveys, if we allowed surveys from other organizations. I don't think it's quite so trivial to assume that all surveys would be able to obviously be "ok" or "not ok". Further, surveys are obviously solicitations for information from individuals, and we tend to be pretty careful when it comes to disclosure of information regarding who are on our various lists, for entirely reasonable privacy reasons, imv. > Good points. Sounds like adding the extra functionality might make it > suitable for future surveys, so they don't need to leverage google's > infrastructure instead. I'd certainly be happy to see that happen. Thanks! Stephen