FAQ

[PostgreSQL-www] Planet posting policy

Dave Page
Jan 29, 2012 at 10:59 am
Hi,

We currently have a strict posting policy for planet.postgresql.org
(http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Planet_PostgreSQL), which has been
applied in such a way that it prevents users posting anything to their
syndicated blogs which may be remotely considered to be advertising.
This has tripped up a number of our regular contributors in the past,
including some senior community members who have posted technical
content about their work which happens to be on commercial products
around PostgreSQL.

I'd like to propose relaxing this policy (or perhaps the
interpretation of it) to allow useful content to be posted that
happens to be centered around commercial products, whilst being
careful to avoid pure advertising content which we certainly do not
want (and should continue to be posted as news or pgsql-announce
articles).

The current policy has the following notes guiding on its interpretation:

---
The primary test here is whether the information provided would be of
some use even to people who have no interest in the commercial product
mentioned. Consider what your entry would look like if all references
to the product were removed. If there's no useful PostgreSQL content
left after doing that, that post is an ad.
---

I'd like to suggest changing that to something like the following:

---
The primary test here is whether the information provided could be
considered pure advertising. Consider what the article would look like
if all references to any products were removed. If there is technical
content remaining that may be considered interesting to those working
with or around PostgreSQL, or the post is in some way describing the
"state of the art" (as related to PostgreSQL), then it is suitable for
syndication on Planet. In contrast, if all the remains is a list of
features with no technical discussion around their implementation,
then that is not suitable for syndication.
---

I'm not wed to that wording - in fact I'm sure we can do better.
However, I hope the intent is clear. Whilst we have had one or two
cases where pure advertising has been removed from Planet, their have
also been cases where potentially interesting posts have had to be
removed due to the strictness of the policy interpretation, which is
unfortunate for everyone.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
reply

Search Discussions

51 responses

  • Magnus Hagander at Jan 29, 2012 at 11:19 am

    On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:59, Dave Page wrote:
    Hi,

    We currently have a strict posting policy for planet.postgresql.org
    (http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Planet_PostgreSQL), which has been
    applied in such a way that it prevents users posting anything to their
    syndicated blogs which may be remotely considered to be advertising.
    This has tripped up a number of our regular contributors in the past,
    including some senior community members who have posted technical
    content about their work which happens to be on commercial products
    around PostgreSQL.

    I'd like to propose relaxing this policy (or perhaps the
    interpretation of it) to allow useful content to be posted that
    happens to be centered around commercial products, whilst being
    careful to avoid pure advertising content which we certainly do not
    want (and should continue to be posted as news or pgsql-announce
    articles).

    The current policy has the following notes guiding on its interpretation:

    ---
    The primary test here is whether the information provided would be of
    some use even to people who have no interest in the commercial product
    mentioned. Consider what your entry would look like if all references
    to the product were removed. If there's no useful PostgreSQL content
    left after doing that, that post is an ad.
    ---

    I'd like to suggest changing that to something like the following:

    ---
    The primary test here is whether the information provided could be
    considered pure advertising. Consider what the article would look like
    I don't like the use of "pure advertising". That makes it go overboard
    in the other direction instead - it's too easy to argue that almost
    *anything* isn't *pure* advertising...

    if all references to any products were removed. If there is technical
    content remaining that may be considered interesting to those working
    with or around PostgreSQL, or the post is in some way describing the
    "state of the art" (as related to PostgreSQL), then it is suitable for
    I'm not sure what the "state of the art" part is actually supposed to
    mean? As in, what does it actually add on top of the already bbeing
    interesting to those working with or around postgres?
    syndication on Planet. In contrast, if all the remains is a list of
    features with no technical discussion around their implementation,
    then that is not suitable for syndication.
    ---
    Should we perhaps also add something about referring to things that
    are IP protected, such as patented technologies, that we don't really
    want people posting about?

    I'm not wed to that wording - in fact I'm sure we can do better.
    However, I hope the intent is clear. Whilst we have had one or two
    cases where pure advertising has been removed from Planet, their have
    also been cases where potentially interesting posts have had to be
    removed due to the strictness of the policy interpretation, which is
    unfortunate for everyone.
    While I don't disagree with relaxing the policies a bit, I only recall
    a single instance of this actually happening recently, and in that
    case it would've also failed the new wording above. Do you have some
    examples? (if you don't want to post those publically for obvious
    reasons, feel free to just remind me personally or the closed
    moderators list about those cases, so we are not missing that
    information)
  • Dave Page at Jan 29, 2012 at 6:42 pm
    Hi
    On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
    On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:59, Dave Page wrote:
    Hi,

    We currently have a strict posting policy for planet.postgresql.org
    (http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Planet_PostgreSQL), which has been
    applied in such a way that it prevents users posting anything to their
    syndicated blogs which may be remotely considered to be advertising.
    This has tripped up a number of our regular contributors in the past,
    including some senior community members who have posted technical
    content about their work which happens to be on commercial products
    around PostgreSQL.

    I'd like to propose relaxing this policy (or perhaps the
    interpretation of it) to allow useful content to be posted that
    happens to be centered around commercial products, whilst being
    careful to avoid pure advertising content which we certainly do not
    want (and should continue to be posted as news or pgsql-announce
    articles).

    The current policy has the following notes guiding on its interpretation:

    ---
    The primary test here is whether the information provided would be of
    some use even to people who have no interest in the commercial product
    mentioned. Consider what your entry would look like if all references
    to the product were removed. If there's no useful PostgreSQL content
    left after doing that, that post is an ad.
    ---

    I'd like to suggest changing that to something like the following:

    ---
    The primary test here is whether the information provided could be
    considered pure advertising. Consider what the article would look like
    I don't like the use of "pure advertising". That makes it go overboard
    in the other direction instead - it's too easy to argue that almost
    *anything* isn't *pure* advertising...
    OK.
    if all references to any products were removed. If there is technical
    content remaining that may be considered interesting to those working
    with or around PostgreSQL, or the post is in some way describing the
    "state of the art" (as related to PostgreSQL), then it is suitable for
    I'm not sure what the "state of the art" part is actually supposed to
    mean? As in, what does it actually add on top of the already bbeing
    interesting to those working with or around postgres?
    I was trying to find a way to allow posts that aren't purely technical
    in nature. For example, if a company started a new website that
    happened to have 10TB of geo data stored in Postgres, I'd want to hear
    about it as a good example of Postgres being used in "state of the
    art" ways, even if it wasn't necessarily a post about how they did it
    in technical detail.
    syndication on Planet. In contrast, if all the remains is a list of
    features with no technical discussion around their implementation,
    then that is not suitable for syndication.
    ---
    Should we perhaps also add something about referring to things that
    are IP protected, such as patented technologies, that we don't really
    want people posting about?
    Sure.
    I'm not wed to that wording - in fact I'm sure we can do better.
    However, I hope the intent is clear. Whilst we have had one or two
    cases where pure advertising has been removed from Planet, their have
    also been cases where potentially interesting posts have had to be
    removed due to the strictness of the policy interpretation, which is
    unfortunate for everyone.
    While I don't disagree with relaxing the policies a bit, I only recall
    a single instance of this actually happening recently, and in that
    case it would've also failed the new wording above. Do you have some
    examples? (if you don't want to post those publically for obvious
    reasons, feel free to just remind me personally or the closed
    moderators list about those cases, so we are not missing that
    information)
    The cases I'm thinking of probably include the one you're thinking of,
    however I thought we blocked two posts from different authors on
    essentially the same subject. Maybe I'm misremembering though, and we
    let one of them pass.

    --
    Dave Page
    Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
    Twitter: @pgsnake

    EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
    The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
  • Peter Geoghegan at Jan 30, 2012 at 5:22 am

    On 29 January 2012 18:42, Dave Page wrote:
    I was trying to find a way to allow posts that aren't purely technical
    in nature. For example, if a company started a new website that
    happened to have 10TB of geo data stored in Postgres, I'd want to hear
    about it as a good example of Postgres being used in "state of the
    art" ways, even if it wasn't necessarily a post about how they did it
    in technical detail.
    Are you sure that that wouldn't be allowed under our current policy?
    I'd have thought that was fine, provided that it was actually useful.

    I'm unsure of my position relating to relaxing those rules. I wouldn't
    like to arbitrarily prevent someone from talking about a topic of
    actual interest or utility to the community on the sole basis that it
    mentioned proprietary software or commercial services in an incidental
    or matter-of-fact fashion. That wasn't how I understood the rules to
    work though.

    It might be helpful if you could cite a specific incident of the
    current rules tripping someone up in a way that was clearly against
    the community's interest.

    Bruce has a good point - the rules should be easily understood.

    --
    Peter Geoghegan       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
    PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
  • Dave Page at Jan 30, 2012 at 7:50 am

    On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
    On 29 January 2012 18:42, Dave Page wrote:
    I was trying to find a way to allow posts that aren't purely technical
    in nature. For example, if a company started a new website that
    happened to have 10TB of geo data stored in Postgres, I'd want to hear
    about it as a good example of Postgres being used in "state of the
    art" ways, even if it wasn't necessarily a post about how they did it
    in technical detail.
    Are you sure that that wouldn't be allowed under our current policy?
    I'd have thought that was fine, provided that it was actually useful.
    It might have been under the policy itself, however we've been
    interpreting that based on the guidance notes which are pretty strict,
    and essentially only allow posts of a purely technical nature.
    It might be helpful if you could cite a specific incident of the
    current rules tripping someone up in a way that was clearly against
    the community's interest.
    I can't do that I'm afraid, as it may cause embarrassment for the
    people/companies involved.

    --
    Dave Page
    Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
    Twitter: @pgsnake

    EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
    The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
  • Peter Geoghegan at Jan 30, 2012 at 8:31 am

    On 30 January 2012 07:50, Dave Page wrote:
    On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
    It might be helpful if you could cite a specific incident of the
    current rules tripping someone up in a way that was clearly against
    the community's interest.
    I can't do that I'm afraid, as it may cause embarrassment for the
    people/companies involved.
    Maybe you should contact them privately and ask them to share their grievances?

    --
    Peter Geoghegan       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
    PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
  • Bruce Momjian at Jan 30, 2012 at 2:57 pm

    On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 07:50:20AM +0000, Dave Page wrote:
    On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
    On 29 January 2012 18:42, Dave Page wrote:
    I was trying to find a way to allow posts that aren't purely technical
    in nature. For example, if a company started a new website that
    happened to have 10TB of geo data stored in Postgres, I'd want to hear
    about it as a good example of Postgres being used in "state of the
    art" ways, even if it wasn't necessarily a post about how they did it
    in technical detail.
    Are you sure that that wouldn't be allowed under our current policy?
    I'd have thought that was fine, provided that it was actually useful.
    It might have been under the policy itself, however we've been
    interpreting that based on the guidance notes which are pretty strict,
    and essentially only allow posts of a purely technical nature.
    I think the real risk we have in relaxing the rules is that postings
    will be made who's _intent_ is to highlight a commercial product. Once
    the indent is commercial promotion, the blog itself isn't very
    interesting to others.

    We have succussfully blocked such postings --- the big question is
    whether we can allow postings based on commercial products without
    having postings that are "intended" to be promotional.

    I think Dave or Josh mention the pitfall tangentially --- if someone's
    intent is promotional, they might blog about how to do X with some
    commercial product, then, next week, show how to do Y with some
    commercial product. Imagine them thinking, "Oh, I haven't blogged about
    my commercial product in a while, and the Postgres blog is very popular,
    let me think of how to do that again."

    I am not saying that will happen, but it might happen if we aren't as
    clear as we are now in the guidelines. And if our rules are not as
    clear as they are now, we then have to guess what their intent was, and
    pick apart the blog post to get facts to support our interpretation.

    I think everyone kind of agrees our rules are too tight, but it is
    unclear how to relax them _clearly_.

    --
    Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
    EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

    + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
  • Cédric Villemain at Jan 30, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    Le 30 janvier 2012 15:57, Bruce Momjian a écrit :
    On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 07:50:20AM +0000, Dave Page wrote:
    On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
    On 29 January 2012 18:42, Dave Page wrote:
    I was trying to find a way to allow posts that aren't purely technical
    in nature. For example, if a company started a new website that
    happened to have 10TB of geo data stored in Postgres, I'd want to hear
    about it as a good example of Postgres being used in "state of the
    art" ways, even if it wasn't necessarily a post about how they did it
    in technical detail.
    Are you sure that that wouldn't be allowed under our current policy?
    I'd have thought that was fine, provided that it was actually useful.
    It might have been under the policy itself, however we've been
    interpreting that based on the guidance notes which are pretty strict,
    and essentially only allow posts of a purely technical nature.
    I think the real risk we have in relaxing the rules is that postings
    will be made who's _intent_ is to highlight a commercial product.  Once
    the indent is commercial promotion, the blog itself isn't very
    interesting to others.

    We have succussfully blocked such postings --- the big question is
    whether we can allow postings based on commercial products without
    having postings that are "intended" to be promotional.

    I think Dave or Josh mention the pitfall tangentially --- if someone's
    intent is promotional, they might blog about how to do X with some
    commercial product, then, next week, show how to do Y with some
    commercial product.  Imagine them thinking, "Oh, I haven't blogged about
    my commercial product in a while, and the Postgres blog is very popular,
    let me think of how to do that again."

    I am not saying that will happen, but it might happen if we aren't as
    clear as we are now in the guidelines.  And if our rules are not as
    clear as they are now, we then have to guess what their intent was, and
    pick apart the blog post to get facts to support our interpretation.

    I think everyone kind of agrees our rules are too tight, but it is
    unclear how to relax them _clearly_.
    I don't know exactly about rules but I am happy to read
    planet.postgresql with the current contents (so the rules looks good
    so far)
    I won't if its to read about internals of close-source products or
    derivate work from close-source product where removing the name of the
    close-source thing is going to remove the interest of the article for
    PostgreSQL and derivate open-source toools and projects.
    Also I am not interested in content I won't be able to use because of
    licence restriction. (not off-topic I believe)

    Maybe the next time someone got a post refused he/she can be asked if
    he agrees to be used to debate the rules change...

    --
    Cédric Villemain +33 (0)6 20 30 22 52
    http://2ndQuadrant.fr/
    PostgreSQL: Support 24x7 - Développement, Expertise et Formation
  • Bruce Momjian at Jan 30, 2012 at 6:06 pm

    On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 04:11:31PM +0100, Cédric Villemain wrote:
    I don't know exactly about rules but I am happy to read
    planet.postgresql with the current contents (so the rules looks good
    so far)
    I won't if its to read about internals of close-source products or
    derivate work from close-source product where removing the name of the
    close-source thing is going to remove the interest of the article for
    PostgreSQL and derivate open-source toools and projects.
    Also I am not interested in content I won't be able to use because of
    licence restriction. (not off-topic I believe)

    Maybe the next time someone got a post refused he/she can be asked if
    he agrees to be used to debate the rules change...
    While I agree with you, I should point out that it is unclear what we
    are _not_ seeing on Planet Postgres which could also be of interest.

    I think the other comment wanting to see an example of what we are
    missing might be the only way we can figure this out.

    --
    Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
    EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

    + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
  • Magnus Hagander at Jan 30, 2012 at 12:24 pm

    On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 06:21, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
    On 29 January 2012 18:42, Dave Page wrote:
    I was trying to find a way to allow posts that aren't purely technical
    in nature. For example, if a company started a new website that
    happened to have 10TB of geo data stored in Postgres, I'd want to hear
    about it as a good example of Postgres being used in "state of the
    art" ways, even if it wasn't necessarily a post about how they did it
    in technical detail.
    Are you sure that that wouldn't be allowed under our current policy?
    I'd have thought that was fine, provided that it was actually useful.
    I think it is, under the "it's a use-case of postgresql". I don't see
    how it would fail to pass the current policies?

    if they built it on postgres plus advanced server, or greenplum, it
    would be off limits, because then it's not related to postgresql other
    than in "second generation".
    I'm unsure of my position relating to relaxing those rules. I wouldn't
    like to arbitrarily prevent someone from talking about a topic of
    actual interest or utility to the community on the sole basis that it
    mentioned proprietary software or commercial services in an incidental
    or matter-of-fact fashion. That wasn't how I understood the rules to
    work though.
    Me either. It might be that the rules are fine and the *guidelines*
    are unclear on that though. But the rule of "if you strip mentioning
    of the commercial product, is it still interesting to the community"
    would seem to allow that pretty well in my understanding.

    It might be helpful if you could cite a specific incident of the
    current rules tripping someone up in a way that was clearly against
    the community's interest.
    Yes. I realize, as you said later downthread, that you can't really do
    it without casting said persons/companie in bad light. But perhaps you
    can try to "anonymize" an example?

    Bruce has a good point - the rules should be easily understood.
    Yes, this is important. Both to make it clear to people what is ok and
    what isn't, and also to decrease the risk of long-running arguments
    when something *is* moderated. (Which has, under these rules, happened
    extremely seldom)
  • Greg Sabino Mullane at Jan 29, 2012 at 3:25 pm

    We currently have a strict posting policy for planet.postgresql.org
    (http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Planet_PostgreSQL), which has been
    applied in such a way that it prevents users posting anything to their
    syndicated blogs which may be remotely considered to be advertising.
    This has tripped up a number of our regular contributors in the past,
    including some senior community members who have posted technical
    content about their work which happens to be on commercial products
    around PostgreSQL.
    Can you point to specific examples of blog posts that have been
    self-moderated as to not appear on Planet due to our policies?
    I think that would help this dicussion if we could see some actual
    problematic posts. I am open to changing the wording.
    The primary test here is whether the information provided could be
    considered pure advertising. Consider what the article would look like
    if all references to any products were removed. If there is technical
    content remaining that may be considered interesting to those working
    with or around PostgreSQL, or the post is in some way describing the
    "state of the art" (as related to PostgreSQL), then it is suitable for
    syndication on Planet. In contrast, if all the remains is a list of
    features with no technical discussion around their implementation,
    then that is not suitable for syndication.
    I'm not seeing much of a distinction here. The key phrase of the
    existing one is "useful PostgreSQL content", which is a fairly
    broad description. I'm not sure what "state of the art (as related to
    PostgreSQL)" even means, honestly.

    - --
    Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
    PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201201291021
    http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
  • Dave Page at Jan 29, 2012 at 6:47 pm

    On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: RIPEMD160

    We currently have a strict posting policy for planet.postgresql.org
    (http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Planet_PostgreSQL), which has been
    applied in such a way that it prevents users posting anything to their
    syndicated blogs which may be remotely considered to be advertising.
    This has tripped up a number of our regular contributors in the past,
    including some senior community members who have posted technical
    content about their work which happens to be on commercial products
    around PostgreSQL.
    Can you point to specific examples of blog posts that have been
    self-moderated as to not appear on Planet due to our policies?
    I think that would help this dicussion if we could see some actual
    problematic posts. I am open to changing the wording.
    I have no idea of any posts that have been self-moderated, except for
    one of my own which I posted only to the EnterpriseDB blog:
    http://blogs.enterprisedb.com/2011/08/23/postgres-enterprise-manager-i-love-it-when-a-plan-comes-together/

    I would have liked to have been able to post that to my regular blog
    so it appeared on Planet, though had I thought that possible I would
    have gone into more technical detail about how the product is
    architected, and made it less "marketing" sounding.


    --
    Dave Page
    Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
    Twitter: @pgsnake

    EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
    The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
  • Josh Berkus at Jan 29, 2012 at 7:22 pm
    Dave,

    I think a list of what's prohibited would be simpler:

    ==================

    The purpose of Planet PostgreSQL is to provide useful news, ideas,
    technical information, and community discussion for members of the
    PostgreSQL community. It is not a medium for advertising commercial
    products and services; the community has other channels for that.
    Therefore, the following kinds of content are prohibited from Planet
    PostgreSQL, and may cause your blog to be removed from syndication if
    you post them:

    * Posts whose primary purpose is to advertise a commercial product,
    service, website, or event and lack substantial technical information or
    news of community interest;

    * Multiple and frequent posts which center around the same commercial
    product, service, event, or website with significant advertising content.

    Since the above evaluations are qualitative, here's some examples:

    BAD: Post announcing the launch of your new PostGIS-based website,
    without any real mention of PostGIS.

    GOOD: Post announcing the launch of your new PostGIS-based website, with
    a couple sentences about how it's based on PostGIS.

    BAD: 5 posts in a row about the new PostGIS website, all of which lack
    siginificant technical content.

    GOOD: Post about your commercial Postgres fork, how it differs from
    mainstream PostgreSQL, and why you'd want to use it.

    GOOD: Post about the technical challenges you overcame when developing
    your commercial Postgres fork.

    BAD: Post announcing the availability of version 3.5.641 of your
    commercial Postgres fork, with details copied directly from the press
    release.

    ==============================


    --
    Josh Berkus
    PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
    http://pgexperts.com
  • Dave Page at Jan 29, 2012 at 7:56 pm

    On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
    Dave,

    I think a list of what's prohibited would be simpler:

    ==================

    The purpose of Planet PostgreSQL is to provide useful news, ideas,
    technical information, and community discussion for members of the
    PostgreSQL community.  It is not a medium for advertising commercial
    products and services; the community has other channels for that.
    Therefore, the following kinds of content are prohibited from Planet
    PostgreSQL, and may cause your blog to be removed from syndication if
    you post them:

    * Posts whose primary purpose is to advertise a commercial product,
    service, website, or event and lack substantial technical information or
    news of community interest;

    * Multiple and frequent posts which center around the same commercial
    product, service, event, or website with significant advertising content.

    Since the above evaluations are qualitative, here's some examples:

    BAD: Post announcing the launch of your new PostGIS-based website,
    without any real mention of PostGIS.

    GOOD: Post announcing the launch of your new PostGIS-based website, with
    a couple sentences about how it's based on PostGIS.

    BAD: 5 posts in a row about the new PostGIS website, all of which lack
    siginificant technical content.

    GOOD: Post about your commercial Postgres fork, how it differs from
    mainstream PostgreSQL, and why you'd want to use it.

    GOOD: Post about the technical challenges you overcame when developing
    your commercial Postgres fork.

    BAD: Post announcing the availability of version 3.5.641 of your
    commercial Postgres fork, with details copied directly from the press
    release.
    I like that.


    --
    Dave Page
    Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
    Twitter: @pgsnake

    EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
    The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
  • Magnus Hagander at Jan 30, 2012 at 12:19 pm

    On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 19:47, Dave Page wrote:
    On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: RIPEMD160

    We currently have a strict posting policy for planet.postgresql.org
    (http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Planet_PostgreSQL), which has been
    applied in such a way that it prevents users posting anything to their
    syndicated blogs which may be remotely considered to be advertising.
    This has tripped up a number of our regular contributors in the past,
    including some senior community members who have posted technical
    content about their work which happens to be on commercial products
    around PostgreSQL.
    Can you point to specific examples of blog posts that have been
    self-moderated as to not appear on Planet due to our policies?
    I think that would help this dicussion if we could see some actual
    problematic posts. I am open to changing the wording.
    I have no idea of any posts that have been self-moderated, except for
    one of my own which I posted only to the EnterpriseDB blog:
    http://blogs.enterprisedb.com/2011/08/23/postgres-enterprise-manager-i-love-it-when-a-plan-comes-together/

    I would have liked to have been able to post that to my regular blog
    so it appeared on Planet, though had I thought that possible I would
    have gone into more technical detail about how the product is
    architected, and made it less "marketing" sounding.
    I think that blog post itself is a very good example of content we
    *don't* necessarily want on planet.

    It's too bad you didn't write a version that had the technical detali
    and was less marketing/pressrelease:y to compare with :-) Because
    AIUI, you don't actually suggest changing the policies as far as to
    allow that post as it is - it would've allowed the modified version
    only?
  • Simon Riggs at Jan 30, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:

    I think that blog post itself is a very good example of content we
    *don't* necessarily want on planet.
    Yeh. It all seems quite simple to me. We're here to contribute to a
    specific open source project, so write a blog about what you have done
    lately that furthers those goals.

    --
    Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
    PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
  • Josh Berkus at Jan 30, 2012 at 5:59 pm

    I think that blog post itself is a very good example of content we
    *don't* necessarily want on planet.
    See, while for me it's exactly the kind of post I think *should* be
    included. Because I'm a working consultant, I'm interested in what the
    various commercial forks can do for my customers, and as a PostgreSQL
    hacker I'm interested in what the various commercial tools tell us about
    our users. As long as it's not press releases.

    I don't think it's going to be possible to have one feed which pleases
    everyone. Maybe we should have two feeds? /oss and /universe ?

    --
    Josh Berkus
    PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
    http://pgexperts.com
  • Magnus Hagander at Jan 30, 2012 at 6:00 pm

    On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 18:58, Josh Berkus wrote:
    I think that blog post itself is a very good example of content we
    *don't* necessarily want on planet.
    See, while for me it's exactly the kind of post I think *should* be
    included.  Because I'm a working consultant, I'm interested in what the
    various commercial forks can do for my customers, and as a PostgreSQL
    hacker I'm interested in what the various commercial tools tell us about
    our users.  As long as it's not press releases.
    Did you read the example? It *was* basically a press release...

    I don't think it's going to be possible to have one feed which pleases
    everyone.  Maybe we should have two feeds?  /oss and /universe ?
    Sure, we could probably find a way to do that, but is the demand
    really high enough to make it worth it?
  • Josh Berkus at Jan 30, 2012 at 6:05 pm
    Magnus,
    Did you read the example? It *was* basically a press release...
    Not from my perspective. Dave's post tells me in factual language
    exactly what the features of PEM are (or are intended to be), sufficient
    to let me know if I should investigate PEM for my customers and PUG or
    not.

    And if you compare it to the EDB press release on the same topic, you'll
    note some dramatic content and style differences. Based on the EDB
    press release, I'd dismissed PEM as yet more EDB vaporware until I got
    to pgOpen.

    --
    Josh Berkus
    PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
    http://pgexperts.com
  • Bruce Momjian at Jan 30, 2012 at 6:19 pm

    On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:05:17AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
    Magnus,
    Did you read the example? It *was* basically a press release...
    Not from my perspective. Dave's post tells me in factual language
    exactly what the features of PEM are (or are intended to be), sufficient
    to let me know if I should investigate PEM for my customers and PUG or
    not.

    And if you compare it to the EDB press release on the same topic, you'll
    note some dramatic content and style differences. Based on the EDB
    press release, I'd dismissed PEM as yet more EDB vaporware until I got
    to pgOpen.
    Let me add I do slip commercial stuff into my blog if it make sense ---
    e.g. if I am speaking to the Boston user group, and doing training there
    as well, I mention the training, but that isn't the topic of the blog
    post (http://momjian.us/main/blogs/pgblog/2012.html#January_16_2012_2).

    Also, I think the commercial PEM product could be blogged about if it
    allows users to see aspects of Postgres via graphs that are not usually
    visible. Also, it possible to blog about Postgres running on the cloud
    and tangentially mention the EDB cloud product, or other cloud products.
    (I mentioned commercial products when I blogged about monitoring,
    http://momjian.us/main/blogs/pgblog/2011.html#November_30_2011.)

    In summary, there are ways to do it now, but it has to be done
    carefully.

    --
    Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
    EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

    + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
  • Joshua D. Drake at Jan 30, 2012 at 7:37 pm

    On 01/30/2012 10:05 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
    Magnus,
    Did you read the example? It *was* basically a press release...
    Not from my perspective. Dave's post tells me in factual language
    exactly what the features of PEM are (or are intended to be), sufficient
    to let me know if I should investigate PEM for my customers and PUG or
    not.

    And if you compare it to the EDB press release on the same topic, you'll
    note some dramatic content and style differences. Based on the EDB
    press release, I'd dismissed PEM as yet more EDB vaporware until I got
    to pgOpen.
    I have to say I am with JoshB on this one. I want to know *all* about
    PostgreSQL. I want Greenplum, VMWare, EDB Advanced Server and .Org
    represented because they all directly apply to what I do for a living. I
    want to know about all the tools and all the options available to me.

    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
  • Jonathan S. Katz at Jan 30, 2012 at 7:56 pm

    On Jan 30, 2012, at 7:29 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:

    Yeh. It all seems quite simple to me. We're here to contribute to a
    specific open source project, so write a blog about what you have done
    lately that furthers those goals.
    On Jan 30, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
    I have to say I am with JoshB on this one. I want to know *all* about PostgreSQL. I want Greenplum, VMWare, EDB Advanced Server and .Org represented because they all directly apply to what I do for a living. I want to know about all the tools and all the options available to me.

    Though these may seem like opposing arguments, I agree with both Simon and JD. Planet blog entries should be pertaining specifically what's going on in the noncommercial part of the community, but at the same time, it's good for the world to be aware of what is being developed commercial and how PostgreSQL and it's derivatives are being employed. After all, a lot of the commercial development does help provide the necessary financing to put new features into core.

    That being said, based on the proposals for the Planet acceptance policy, there is too much of a "gray line" on what is acceptable (even by just debate on the list over one entry). Having two separate feeds is a possibility, and has a few pros:

    * Highlight both feeds on the postgresql.org home page (both in separate sections, and I would put community higher up) - show what is happening in the community, and what is happening the commercial world, hopefully driving more interest in both
    * Eliminate "confusion" over what is acceptable content in the community blogs

    Having a commercial.planet.postresql.org could help community members working on commercial products highlight some of the cool stuff they are doing, while not taking away from community-led efforts. Thus the policy could be:

    * If the work is strictly community related (i.e. the work is going directly into core, some extension, or some open-source Postgres derivative or project), then it's on planet
    * If the work is for a commercial product, it goes on the other feed

    Jonathan
  • Bruce Momjian at Jan 30, 2012 at 6:11 pm

    On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 07:00:26PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
    On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 18:58, Josh Berkus wrote:

    I think that blog post itself is a very good example of content we
    *don't* necessarily want on planet.
    See, while for me it's exactly the kind of post I think *should* be
    included.  Because I'm a working consultant, I'm interested in what the
    various commercial forks can do for my customers, and as a PostgreSQL
    hacker I'm interested in what the various commercial tools tell us about
    our users.  As long as it's not press releases.
    Did you read the example? It *was* basically a press release...

    I don't think it's going to be possible to have one feed which pleases
    everyone.  Maybe we should have two feeds?  /oss and /universe ?
    Sure, we could probably find a way to do that, but is the demand
    really high enough to make it worth it?
    I think the big question is whether our announce list is sufficient
    (which allows commercial postings) or whether there is stuff that
    doesn't fit on announce that should be on our blog.

    --
    Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
    EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

    + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
  • Dave Page at Feb 1, 2012 at 9:42 am

    On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
    On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 07:00:26PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
    On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 18:58, Josh Berkus wrote:

    I think that blog post itself is a very good example of content we
    *don't* necessarily want on planet.
    See, while for me it's exactly the kind of post I think *should* be
    included.  Because I'm a working consultant, I'm interested in what the
    various commercial forks can do for my customers, and as a PostgreSQL
    hacker I'm interested in what the various commercial tools tell us about
    our users.  As long as it's not press releases.
    Did you read the example? It *was* basically a press release...

    I don't think it's going to be possible to have one feed which pleases
    everyone.  Maybe we should have two feeds?  /oss and /universe ?
    Sure, we could probably find a way to do that, but is the demand
    really high enough to make it worth it?
    I think the big question is whether our announce list is sufficient
    (which allows commercial postings) or whether there is stuff that
    doesn't fit on announce that should be on our blog.
    -announce is for press-release type stuff, which we definitely do not
    want on Planet. Similarly, we wouldn't want technical write ups on
    -announce.

    --
    Dave Page
    Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
    Twitter: @pgsnake

    EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
    The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
  • Dave Page at Feb 1, 2012 at 9:41 am

    On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
    I think that blog post itself is a very good example of content we
    *don't* necessarily want on planet.
    See, while for me it's exactly the kind of post I think *should* be
    included.  Because I'm a working consultant, I'm interested in what the
    various commercial forks can do for my customers, and as a PostgreSQL
    hacker I'm interested in what the various commercial tools tell us about
    our users.  As long as it's not press releases.
    Right - and we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Planet isn't
    their primarily for us; it's there for the users. Some of them
    probably only want to know about PostgreSQL itself, whilst others will
    certainly be interested in the entire eco-system around PostgreSQL.

    In just about every other aspect of what we do, we encourage input and
    content from commercial and OSS product vendors alike, both about
    their products and because they're vendors we're happy to be
    associated with; news, events, announcements, press quotes, the
    product catalogue etc. etc. Planet is the only exception to this I can
    think of.


    --
    Dave Page
    Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
    Twitter: @pgsnake

    EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
    The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
  • Magnus Hagander at Feb 1, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:40, Dave Page wrote:
    On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:

    I think that blog post itself is a very good example of content we
    *don't* necessarily want on planet.
    See, while for me it's exactly the kind of post I think *should* be
    included.  Because I'm a working consultant, I'm interested in what the
    various commercial forks can do for my customers, and as a PostgreSQL
    hacker I'm interested in what the various commercial tools tell us about
    our users.  As long as it's not press releases.
    Right - and we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Planet isn't
    their primarily for us; it's there for the users. Some of them
    Agreed. Which is why it's interesting that those posting in favor of
    allowing more "commercially oriented" posts are the people who either
    have commercial products they'd consider blogging about or have
    previous been asked to remove at least one post from the planet... At
    least AFAICT, forgive me if I got one wrong or so, but the majority is
    certainly that way...

    But we haven't heard from any of those users that it's actually there for.

    Maybe we should post a survey on postgresql.org or something to gauge
    the *outside* interest?

    probably only want to know about PostgreSQL itself, whilst others will
    certainly be interested in the entire eco-system around PostgreSQL.

    In just about every other aspect of what we do, we encourage input and
    content from commercial and OSS product vendors alike, both about
    their products and because they're vendors we're happy to be
    associated with; news, events, announcements, press quotes, the
    product catalogue etc. etc. Planet is the only exception to this I can
    think of.
    Well, we rate-limit post in other scenarios. If we do allow it on
    planet, we should probably at least rate-limit it the same way we do
    for news. While we could (and it would probably make sense to) apply
    the same policy as we do for news, it would be a lot harder to
    actually follow up on it on planet since we don't moderate the posts
    there.

    The only technical solution I see to that that seems reasonably easy
    to build would be to have those who want to post these more commercial
    posts on their blog register for a special "permission" to do that,
    and that those posts ends up being moderated in the same way we
    moderate news today. That might work reasonably well, but it's
    certainly a more complex process...
  • Dave Page at Feb 1, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
    On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:40, Dave Page wrote:
    On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:

    I think that blog post itself is a very good example of content we
    *don't* necessarily want on planet.
    See, while for me it's exactly the kind of post I think *should* be
    included.  Because I'm a working consultant, I'm interested in what the
    various commercial forks can do for my customers, and as a PostgreSQL
    hacker I'm interested in what the various commercial tools tell us about
    our users.  As long as it's not press releases.
    Right - and we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Planet isn't
    their primarily for us; it's there for the users. Some of them
    Agreed. Which is why it's interesting that those posting in favor of
    allowing more "commercially oriented" posts are the people who either
    have commercial products they'd consider blogging about or have
    previous been asked to remove at least one post from the planet... At
    least AFAICT, forgive me if I got one wrong or so, but the majority is
    certainly that way...
    Well, from a sample set of half a dozen or so community members
    overall. That doesn't really tell us anything though.
    But we haven't heard from any of those users that it's actually there for.

    Maybe we should post a survey on postgresql.org or something to gauge
    the *outside* interest?
    That doesn't seem unreasonable.
    probably only want to know about PostgreSQL itself, whilst others will
    certainly be interested in the entire eco-system around PostgreSQL.

    In just about every other aspect of what we do, we encourage input and
    content from commercial and OSS product vendors alike, both about
    their products and because they're vendors we're happy to be
    associated with; news, events, announcements, press quotes, the
    product catalogue etc. etc. Planet is the only exception to this I can
    think of.
    Well, we rate-limit post in other scenarios. If we do allow it on
    planet, we should probably at least rate-limit it the same way we do
    for news. While we could (and it would probably make sense to) apply
    the same policy as we do for news, it would be a lot harder to
    actually follow up on it on planet since we don't moderate the posts
    there.

    The only technical solution I see to that that seems reasonably easy
    to build would be to have those who want to post these more commercial
    posts on their blog register for a special "permission" to do that,
    and that those posts ends up being moderated in the same way we
    moderate news today. That might work reasonably well, but it's
    certainly a more complex process...
    Yeah. But that's also drifting off-topic slightly - the question in
    debate here is "do we want to relax the rules", which a number of
    people have been in favour of, and only one against if I'm counting
    correctly, and if so, how do we do so without going too far in the
    other direction? We only really need a moderation system if people
    don't follow the guidelines.

    --
    Dave Page
    Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
    Twitter: @pgsnake

    EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
    The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
  • Joshua D. Drake at Feb 1, 2012 at 6:08 pm

    On 02/01/2012 08:43 AM, Dave Page wrote:

    The only technical solution I see to that that seems reasonably easy
    to build would be to have those who want to post these more commercial
    posts on their blog register for a special "permission" to do that,
    and that those posts ends up being moderated in the same way we
    moderate news today. That might work reasonably well, but it's
    certainly a more complex process...
    Yeah. But that's also drifting off-topic slightly - the question in
    debate here is "do we want to relax the rules", which a number of
    people have been in favour of, and only one against if I'm counting
    correctly, and if so, how do we do so without going too far in the
    other direction? We only really need a moderation system if people
    don't follow the guidelines.
    A poll will be mostly useless. It is going to only get responses from
    those who:

    A. Care about polls
    B. Read the poll section
    C. Are directly .Org people (versus remotely)

    The question to me really boils down to, do we want to relax the rules
    in an order to increase readership and the value (intellectual) of the
    content.

    As long as the rules are as they are, we are limiting the advocacy power
    of Planet. Maybe that is what we want, maybe not but as Dave has said,
    most are in favor of relaxing the rules.

    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
  • Magnus Hagander at Feb 1, 2012 at 6:22 pm

    On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 19:07, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
    On 02/01/2012 08:43 AM, Dave Page wrote:

    The only technical solution I see to that that seems reasonably easy
    to build would be to have those who want to post these more commercial
    posts on their blog register for a special "permission" to do that,
    and that those posts ends up being moderated in the same way we
    moderate news today. That might work reasonably well, but it's
    certainly a more complex process...

    Yeah. But that's also drifting off-topic slightly - the question in
    debate here is "do we want to relax the rules", which a number of
    people have been in favour of, and only one against if I'm counting
    correctly, and if so, how do we do so without going too far in the
    other direction? We only really need a moderation system if people
    don't follow the guidelines.
    A poll will be mostly useless. It is going to only get responses from those
    who:

    A. Care about polls
    B. Read the poll section
    C. Are directly .Org people (versus remotely)
    The reasonable tihng would be to announce the poll on *planet*. That
    would make it reach exactly the people we want, which is, those who
    read planet.

    The question to me really boils down to, do we want to relax the rules in an
    order to increase readership and the value (intellectual) of the content.
    No, it also boils down to if relaxing the rule *does* increase
    readership (probably, but *far* from certain) and the value (much more
    in debate, I'd say) of planet.

    As long as the rules are as they are, we are limiting the advocacy power of
    Planet. Maybe that is what we want, maybe not but as Dave has said, most are
    Is it *for* advocacy, or is it for getting "actual information" for
    people who are already users? That's a separate question.

    in favor of relaxing the rules.
    I don't agree with that statement. I'd say the majority is *undecided*
    at this point, because they don't know what it would mean.

    The majority *of the people who would be posting other things under
    these rules* are in favor of it. That is hardly surprising. In fact,
    if they were against it, we wouldn't even be discussing this, and the
    thread would probably never have been started.
  • Joshua D. Drake at Feb 1, 2012 at 6:57 pm

    On 02/01/2012 10:22 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:

    The reasonable tihng would be to announce the poll on *planet*. That
    would make it reach exactly the people we want, which is, those who
    read planet.
    I would agree this would be a reasonable sample but I would not agree
    that it is as reasonable as it could be (how to solve it, I don't know).
    The question to me really boils down to, do we want to relax the rules in an
    order to increase readership and the value (intellectual) of the content.
    No, it also boils down to if relaxing the rule *does* increase
    readership (probably, but *far* from certain) and the value (much more
    in debate, I'd say) of planet.
    I am not sure how much debate there really is except from a puritanical
    sense that doesn't really add to the value of the content. It is
    directly appropriate to read about vPostgres and all its goodness on
    planet (same as Advanced server, IMO).

    As long as the rules are as they are, we are limiting the advocacy power of
    Planet. Maybe that is what we want, maybe not but as Dave has said, most are
    Is it *for* advocacy, or is it for getting "actual information" for
    people who are already users? That's a separate question.
    Good point.

    Sincerely,

    Joshua D. Drake


    --
    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
  • Bruce Momjian at Feb 1, 2012 at 10:05 pm

    On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 10:56:43AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
    On 02/01/2012 10:22 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:

    The reasonable tihng would be to announce the poll on *planet*. That
    would make it reach exactly the people we want, which is, those who
    read planet.
    I would agree this would be a reasonable sample but I would not
    agree that it is as reasonable as it could be (how to solve it, I
    don't know).
    The question to me really boils down to, do we want to relax the rules in an
    order to increase readership and the value (intellectual) of the content.
    No, it also boils down to if relaxing the rule *does* increase
    readership (probably, but *far* from certain) and the value (much more
    in debate, I'd say) of planet.
    I am not sure how much debate there really is except from a
    puritanical sense that doesn't really add to the value of the
    content. It is directly appropriate to read about vPostgres and all
    its goodness on planet (same as Advanced server, IMO).
    If I was sure that commercial content would be posted with the same
    regularity and motivation as our current content, I would be fine, but
    knowing companies, I doubt that is true.

    I can imagine company X saying, "Oh, we have a new product coming out
    --- we need a blog campaign around that." I am afraid that isn't going
    to be pretty.

    Now, as a counter example, I just looked at the EnterpriseDB blog and
    saw what they blogged about the cloud product they just released:

    http://blogs.enterprisedb.com/

    There are only two blog entries, and the rest are PG community ones from
    me, so I guess if they aren't totally spamming their own
    company-controlled blog, they might not do too much harm on Planet
    Postgres.

    --
    Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
    EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

    + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
  • Joshua D. Drake at Feb 1, 2012 at 10:16 pm

    On 02/01/2012 02:04 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
    If I was sure that commercial content would be posted with the same
    regularity and motivation as our current content, I would be fine, but
    knowing companies, I doubt that is true.

    I can imagine company X saying, "Oh, we have a new product coming out
    --- we need a blog campaign around that." I am afraid that isn't going
    to be pretty.
    I would agree with that and I am not suggesting we allow press releases
    or advertising etc... However, I do think relevant technical information
    on a product is useful.

    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
  • Bruce Momjian at Feb 1, 2012 at 11:30 pm

    On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 02:15:39PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
    On 02/01/2012 02:04 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:

    If I was sure that commercial content would be posted with the same
    regularity and motivation as our current content, I would be fine, but
    knowing companies, I doubt that is true.

    I can imagine company X saying, "Oh, we have a new product coming out
    --- we need a blog campaign around that." I am afraid that isn't going
    to be pretty.
    I would agree with that and I am not suggesting we allow press
    releases or advertising etc... However, I do think relevant
    technical information on a product is useful.
    Well, as you can see, I am arguing both points, so I am more shooting
    out possible ideas rather than having a clear goal myself.

    --
    Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
    EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

    + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
  • Magnus Hagander at Feb 1, 2012 at 6:19 pm

    On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 17:43, Dave Page wrote:
    On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
    On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:40, Dave Page wrote:
    On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:

    I think that blog post itself is a very good example of content we
    *don't* necessarily want on planet.
    See, while for me it's exactly the kind of post I think *should* be
    included.  Because I'm a working consultant, I'm interested in what the
    various commercial forks can do for my customers, and as a PostgreSQL
    hacker I'm interested in what the various commercial tools tell us about
    our users.  As long as it's not press releases.
    Right - and we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Planet isn't
    their primarily for us; it's there for the users. Some of them
    Agreed. Which is why it's interesting that those posting in favor of
    allowing more "commercially oriented" posts are the people who either
    have commercial products they'd consider blogging about or have
    previous been asked to remove at least one post from the planet... At
    least AFAICT, forgive me if I got one wrong or so, but the majority is
    certainly that way...
    Well, from a sample set of half a dozen or so community members
    overall. That doesn't really tell us anything though.
    Agreed - that's excatly the problem.

    But we haven't heard from any of those users that it's actually there for.

    Maybe we should post a survey on postgresql.org or something to gauge
    the *outside* interest?
    That doesn't seem unreasonable.
    Josh (B), I think you are the one who normally post those - do you
    have anything else scheduled up that this would conflict with? I'm
    assuming not since AFAIK you still haven't tried to even use the new
    interface? ;)

    probably only want to know about PostgreSQL itself, whilst others will
    certainly be interested in the entire eco-system around PostgreSQL.

    In just about every other aspect of what we do, we encourage input and
    content from commercial and OSS product vendors alike, both about
    their products and because they're vendors we're happy to be
    associated with; news, events, announcements, press quotes, the
    product catalogue etc. etc. Planet is the only exception to this I can
    think of.
    Well, we rate-limit post in other scenarios. If we do allow it on
    planet, we should probably at least rate-limit it the same way we do
    for news. While we could (and it would probably make sense to) apply
    the same policy as we do for news, it would be a lot harder to
    actually follow up on it on planet since we don't moderate the posts
    there.

    The only technical solution I see to that that seems reasonably easy
    to build would be to have those who want to post these more commercial
    posts on their blog register for a special "permission" to do that,
    and that those posts ends up being moderated in the same way we
    moderate news today. That might work reasonably well, but it's
    certainly a more complex process...
    Yeah. But that's also drifting off-topic slightly - the question in
    debate here is "do we want to relax the rules", which a number of
    people have been in favour of, and only one against if I'm counting
    correctly, and if so, how do we do so without going too far in the
    other direction? We only really need a moderation system if people
    don't follow the guidelines.
    Yes, I also only count one actual "no" - but I count at least four as
    basically saying "need to know what this would actually mean before I
    can judge if this is a good idea"... And that's pretty much everybody
    who doesn't fall into the category above of being one of the probable
    *posters* of such posts.
  • Greg Sabino Mullane at Feb 1, 2012 at 11:41 pm

    Yeah. But that's also drifting off-topic slightly - the question in
    debate here is "do we want to relax the rules", which a number of
    people have been in favour of, and only one against if I'm counting
    correctly, and if so, how do we do so without going too far in the
    other direction? We only really need a moderation system if people
    don't follow the guidelines.
    Counting, and polls, is silly: what we really need is a rough consensus
    (from those of us that care enough to read this list) on what is best
    for the project. Nonetheless, count me as a -1 for changing the
    guidelines until a better rationale and some solid examples are given.
    I think the onus is on those proposing a change to convince us the
    status quo is not working.

    Also -1 to creating a second "corporate-focused" blog.

    For an example of what a aggregator with a more relaxed policy might
    look like, check out planet.mysql.com. It used to be a tighter,
    more technically focused blog, but it is now a firehouse of all sorts
    of things that I find challenging to wade through and keep up with
    (although the blast of Oracle-related posts has subsided a bit in
    the past few months).

    - --
    Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
    End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/
    PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201202011838
    http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
  • Alvaro Herrera at Feb 2, 2012 at 12:56 am

    Excerpts from Greg Sabino Mullane's message of mié feb 01 23:41:15 UTC 2012:

    For an example of what a aggregator with a more relaxed policy might
    look like, check out planet.mysql.com. It used to be a tighter,
    more technically focused blog, but it is now a firehouse of all sorts
    of things that I find challenging to wade through and keep up with
    (although the blast of Oracle-related posts has subsided a bit in
    the past few months).
    Yeah. I used to like how Planet Gnome and Debian aggregated every
    article from their authors, regardless of whether it was Gnome- or
    Debian-specific or not. It gave the planet a more familiar feel.
    However, I don't like that idea anymore. You end up reading how they
    feed their cats and such. I guess it works for them because it's mainly
    for their own internal consumption, or something like that. For me, as
    an outsider, it's not all that interesting.

    --
    Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
    The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
    PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
  • Josh Berkus at Feb 2, 2012 at 4:15 am

    On 2/1/12 11:27 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
    Agreed. Which is why it's interesting that those posting in favor of
    allowing more "commercially oriented" posts are the people who either
    have commercial products they'd consider blogging about or have
    previous been asked to remove at least one post from the planet... At
    least AFAICT, forgive me if I got one wrong or so, but the majority is
    certainly that way...
    Yes, although I'll point out that the post I got removed was one which
    would still be prohibited under my suggested new policy.

    Personally, I really do think two feeds is the only answer ...

    --
    Josh Berkus
    PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
    http://pgexperts.com
  • Dave Page at Feb 1, 2012 at 9:34 am

    On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
    I think that blog post itself is a very good example of content we
    *don't* necessarily want on planet.
    As written. I don't think it's a million miles off though.
    It's too bad you didn't write a version that had the technical detali
    and was less marketing/pressrelease:y to compare with :-) Because
    AIUI, you don't actually suggest changing the policies as far as to
    allow that post as it is - it would've allowed the modified version
    only?
    Correct - though I would have described the basic features of course,
    as would be necessary to give the appropriate context to the technical
    detail.

    --
    Dave Page
    Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
    Twitter: @pgsnake

    EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
    The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
  • Greg Smith at Apr 17, 2012 at 4:49 am

    On 01/29/2012 10:25 AM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
    Can you point to specific examples of blog posts that have been
    self-moderated as to not appear on Planet due to our policies?
    I think that would help this dicussion if we could see some actual
    problematic posts. I am open to changing the wording.
    Missed this party first time around, chiming in late. We have a whole
    category full of them at http://blog.2ndquadrant.com/en/greenplum/

    These examples are further over the line here than the one Dave
    suggested from his own blog. They're a useful data point though just
    for that reason. Any rewritten policy that makes these suddenly Planet
    material has likely gone too far. While surely there's somebody who
    thinks a Planet PostgreSQL that also mixes in regular Greenplum features
    is a great idea, I'd put my bet on that being a poor choice.

    The line is closer for EDB and PEM. I think it's possible to write a
    PEM blog post that fits the current rules. If I were tasked with doing
    that, I'd start with some informative comments about things that are
    hard to monitor in regular PostgreSQL, and what sorts of problems the
    general management headaches related to it cause. Then an ending that
    introduces PEM as an example of how one company addressed those problems
    in a commercial product would be fine. I'd walk away knowing something
    useful about common deployment problems, and the fact that a commercial
    product was suggested as one way to solve them would be helpful.

    I was the original author of the stickiest of the paragraphs here, this one:

    "The primary test here is whether the information provided would be of
    some use even to people who have no interest in the commercial product
    mentioned. Consider what your entry would look like if all references
    to the product were removed. If there's no useful PostgreSQL content
    left after doing that, that post is an ad."

    That came out of seeing two similar violations appear in a short period,
    and trying to write something that would be helpful guidance to exclude
    both of them. I hoped that text might improve one day to sound a bit
    more tolerant. I still don't have a good counter-example to chew on yet
    though, something that would be blocked by this suggestion but is likely
    to be popular anyway. It's a tricky line to draw.

    --
    Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD
    PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com
  • Dave Page at Apr 17, 2012 at 8:11 am

    On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 4:49 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
    The line is closer for EDB and PEM.  I think it's possible to write a PEM
    blog post that fits the current rules.  If I were tasked with doing that,
    I'd start with some informative comments about things that are hard to
    monitor in regular PostgreSQL, and what sorts of problems the general
    management headaches related to it cause.  Then an ending that introduces
    PEM as an example of how one company addressed those problems in a
    commercial product would be fine.  I'd walk away knowing something useful
    about common deployment problems, and the fact that a commercial product was
    suggested as one way to solve them would be helpful.
    It's interesting that you think that's possible. I've thus far refused
    requests from our marketing department to do exactly at as I thought
    it would certainly be a violation of the policy. I'm not convinced it
    wouldn't be even now, but it's interesting to know you might find
    something acceptable. When I get a hour (probably a couple of years
    from now as things are currently looking!) I might give it a whirl and
    run it past you guys.


    --
    Dave Page
    Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
    Twitter: @pgsnake

    EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
    The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
  • Greg Smith at Apr 17, 2012 at 9:01 pm

    On 04/17/2012 04:10 AM, Dave Page wrote:
    It's interesting that you think that's possible. I've thus far refused
    requests from our marketing department to do exactly at as I thought
    it would certainly be a violation of the policy. I'm not convinced it
    wouldn't be even now, but it's interesting to know you might find
    something acceptable.
    I would think this format would work:

    -What things do people like to monitor/manage on their Postgres database?
    -Quick intro to what the free tools can do [pgAdmin III, Munin, etc.]
    -Discussion of the things that PEM provides

    If people walk away having learned something about monitoring and tools
    for PostgreSQL in general, I'd consider that a useful article meeting
    the standard I suggested here--"information provided would be of some
    use even to people who have no interest in the commercial product
    mentioned"--even if it ended with a discussion of how PEM aims to solve
    those problems.

    --
    Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD
    PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com
  • Joshua D. Drake at Apr 17, 2012 at 9:22 pm

    On 04/17/2012 02:01 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
    On 04/17/2012 04:10 AM, Dave Page wrote:
    It's interesting that you think that's possible. I've thus far refused
    requests from our marketing department to do exactly at as I thought
    it would certainly be a violation of the policy. I'm not convinced it
    wouldn't be even now, but it's interesting to know you might find
    something acceptable.
    I would think this format would work:

    -What things do people like to monitor/manage on their Postgres database?
    -Quick intro to what the free tools can do [pgAdmin III, Munin, etc.]
    -Discussion of the things that PEM provides

    If people walk away having learned something about monitoring and tools
    for PostgreSQL in general, I'd consider that a useful article meeting
    the standard I suggested here--"information provided would be of some
    use even to people who have no interest in the commercial product
    mentioned"--even if it ended with a discussion of how PEM aims to solve
    those problems.
    As would I.

    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
  • Josh Berkus at Apr 17, 2012 at 5:16 pm

    On 4/16/12 9:49 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
    These examples are further over the line here than the one Dave
    suggested from his own blog. They're a useful data point though just
    for that reason. Any rewritten policy that makes these suddenly Planet
    material has likely gone too far. While surely there's somebody who
    thinks a Planet PostgreSQL that also mixes in regular Greenplum features
    is a great idea, I'd put my bet on that being a poor choice.
    I had a discussion about this with other OSS projects while at PyCon
    this year (mostly due to the Planet Mozilla firestorm, but that's
    another story). Several OSS projects have a "main" and a "universe"
    feeds, with the "main" being strictly limited to stuff about the
    project, and "universe" being anything someone with any approved blog
    wants to post. This has worked well for the organizations who
    implemented it.

    Other groups have strict planets ( like ours ), and still others (Gnome,
    Mozilla, etc.) have very liberal feeds where anyone who is a project
    developer can post whatever they want (and do).

    As an example, I want to read about 2Q's stuff on Greenplum. I can
    understand, though, that a lot of Postgres users wouldn't want to. If
    we had a "universe" feed, I'd both subscribe to it and post to it. For
    another example, my "Booze and Brogrammers" post really belonged on a
    "universe" instead of "main", but I was faced with a binary choice and
    put it on Planet.

    --
    Josh Berkus
    PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
    http://pgexperts.com
  • Greg Sabino Mullane at Apr 18, 2012 at 3:13 am

    another example, my "Booze and Brogrammers" post really belonged on a
    "universe" instead of "main", but I was faced with a binary choice and
    put it on Planet.
    No, that belonged on Planet, it's an important discussion.

    However, I'm against a "universe" feed. Too easy for posts to slip
    from one side to the other, making nobody happy (the main people
    will be upset if something they care about goes to universe, and
    will also be upset if something that should be[1] in universe
    makes it way to main.

    [1] "should be" according to them! There's the rub.

    - --
    Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
    PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201204172312
    http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
  • Greg Smith at Apr 18, 2012 at 3:50 am

    On 04/17/2012 01:16 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
    For another example, my "Booze and Brogrammers" post really belonged on a
    "universe" instead of "main", but I was faced with a binary choice and
    put it on Planet.
    Luckily I have a PostgreSQL 9.1 "With a community that knows how to
    party" poster here to remember the old Josh by. I'm planning a round of
    memorial shots at the Royal Oak next month.

    --
    Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD
    PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com
  • Dave Page at Apr 18, 2012 at 7:47 am

    On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
    On 04/17/2012 01:16 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:

    For another example, my "Booze and Brogrammers" post really belonged on a
    "universe" instead of "main", but I was faced with a binary choice and
    put it on Planet.

    Luckily I have a PostgreSQL 9.1 "With a community that knows how to party"
    poster here to remember the old Josh by.  I'm planning a round of memorial
    shots at the Royal Oak next month.
    Good call.

    --
    Dave Page
    Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
    Twitter: @pgsnake

    EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
    The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
  • Robert Haas at Apr 18, 2012 at 2:02 pm

    On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Dave Page wrote:
    On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
    On 04/17/2012 01:16 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:

    For another example, my "Booze and Brogrammers" post really belonged on a
    "universe" instead of "main", but I was faced with a binary choice and
    put it on Planet.
    Luckily I have a PostgreSQL 9.1 "With a community that knows how to party"
    poster here to remember the old Josh by.  I'm planning a round of memorial
    shots at the Royal Oak next month.
    Good call.
    +1 for hanging out some place and drinking until late at night; -1 for
    that place being the Royal Oak.

    And just to throw in some content that's not totally off-topic, I can
    see the possible value of a universe feed. I've occasionally posted
    things and wondered whether they were closely enough related to
    PostgreSQL to justify putting them on planet; and I've also refrained
    from posting things at all due to marginal relevance. On the other
    hand, it's not entirely clear to me that two feeds would be better for
    our user base. Right now, if you scan down the Planet feed, you're
    likely to find some things that are interesting to you and some that
    aren't. Odds are very good that the same would be true of a
    Planet-Universe feed, so maybe we'd just be giving people two things
    to look at instead of one.

    It seems to me that people are already playing fairly fast and loose
    with the policy. For example:

    http://lethargy.org/~jesus/writes/omnios has nothing obviously to do
    with PostgreSQL whatsoever.

    http://michael.otacoo.com/postgresql-2/postgres-xc-1-0beta1-released/
    is about a fork of PostgreSQL. Is it more acceptable to blog about
    that than about Greenplum or PPAS because it's open source? If so,
    fine, but I don't think I've seen that spelled out anywhere.

    http://pyrseas.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/database-user-interfaces-pagination/
    has some connection to PostgreSQL, but only really in that it's
    talking about a technology stack that has PostgreSQL buried in it
    somewhere, not because there's anything actually relevant to
    PostgreSQL in that particular blog post.

    And that is just the front page. In contrast, if you look through the
    history of what Dave, Bruce, and I have posted on Planet, you will
    find essentially no mentions of any EnterpriseDB product anywhere. At
    the end of the day, I don't really care that much what content we do
    or don't allow on Planet, but seems pretty clear that EnterpriseDB and
    2ndQuadrant are self-censoring out of an abundance of caution and a
    desire to play by community rules, and other people aren't doing that
    to the same degree. Again, I don't have a strong opinion on what we
    should or should not allow, but it would be nice if we were all on the
    same page.

    --
    Robert Haas
    EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
    The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
  • Greg Sabino Mullane at Apr 18, 2012 at 4:02 pm

    Robert Haas wrote:
    It seems to me that people are already playing fairly fast and loose
    with the policy. For example:
    Thanks for calling this out. I agree there have been some
    posts of late that are outside both the current guidelines,
    and even the proposed looser ones. The question is, who calls
    them out and what do we do about it? I call them out from time
    to time - sometimes it works, sometimes it leads to long threads
    with no action. Part of having a clear policy of course, is that
    it removes subjectiveness and doesn't make people feel like they
    are being picked on.
    http://lethargy.org/~jesus/writes/omnios has nothing obviously to do
    with PostgreSQL whatsoever.
    Agreed. Very cool, but very off topic.
    http://michael.otacoo.com/postgresql-2/postgres-xc-1-0beta1-released/
    is about a fork of PostgreSQL. Is it more acceptable to blog about
    that than about Greenplum or PPAS because it's open source? If so,
    fine, but I don't think I've seen that spelled out anywhere.
    It does seem like more of an -announce, but we've never discouraged
    cross-posting, so to speak. Separately, yes, I think we do give more leeway to
    things that are not just Postgres-related, but Postgres-like in
    licensing and source availablity. Whether we should spell this out
    in the policy, I don't know. To be honest, posts like this do make me
    reconsider my policy of not making a post for each Bucardo or DBD::Pg
    beta / new release.
    http://pyrseas.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/database-user-interfaces-pagination/
    has some connection to PostgreSQL, but only really in that it's
    talking about a technology stack that has PostgreSQL buried in it
    somewhere, not because there's anything actually relevant to
    PostgreSQL in that particular blog post.
    I'm okay overall with this one, probably because it is so short and is
    part of an ongoing series (kind of), but I see your point.
    At the end of the day, I don't really care that much what content we do
    or don't allow on Planet, but seems pretty clear that EnterpriseDB and
    2ndQuadrant are self-censoring out of an abundance of caution and a
    desire to play by community rules, and other people aren't doing that
    to the same degree.
    I do care what content we allow, as we don't want a firehose, we want things
    to be relevant to most readers, and we want the planet to reflect positively on
    the project as a whole. If you feel people or companies are not playing by
    the current rules, feel free to name them here. I think most are playing
    by the rules, but I usually skim planet via RSS on my phone; I will make more
    of an effort in the future to consider appropriateness and report here.


    - --
    Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
    End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/
    PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201204181200
    http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
  • Joshua D. Drake at Apr 18, 2012 at 4:10 pm

    On 04/18/2012 09:02 AM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:

    I do care what content we allow, as we don't want a firehose, we want things
    to be relevant to most readers, and we want the planet to reflect positively on
    the project as a whole. If you feel people or companies are not playing by
    the current rules, feel free to name them here. I think most are playing
    by the rules, but I usually skim planet via RSS on my phone; I will make more
    of an effort in the future to consider appropriateness and report here.
    Why don't we just make it self policing?

    If you are logged into planet, there is a button that says "report".
    Anyone who is logged in can report a post as offtopic or innappropriate
    (although I haven't seen any of those). That moderation report would
    submit to the planet admins list for review.

    Thus.... the readers who log in, set the stage for what is allowed
    versus some arbitrary small group of people who "think" they know what
    the community wants.

    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
  • Greg Sabino Mullane at Apr 18, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    JD asked:
    Why don't we just make it self policing?

    If you are logged into planet, there is a button that says "report".
    Anyone who is logged in can report a post as offtopic or innappropriate
    Well, we could try, but I doubt it would work well, if the MySQL planet
    rating system is any indication. But I have no objection to trying.
    How soon can you have a patch ready? :)
    as offtopic or innappropriate
    (although I haven't seen any of those). Really?
    Thus.... the readers who log in, set the stage for what is allowed
    versus some arbitrary small group of people who "think" they know what
    the community wants.
    Well, we are the community. Anyone is welcome to post to this list
    and contribute. Perhaps only those of us who are vocal and take the time
    to post are misrepresenting the community, but it's hard to know.

    - --
    Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
    End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/
    PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201204181219
    http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
  • Bruce Momjian at Jan 30, 2012 at 4:25 am

    On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 10:59:29AM +0000, Dave Page wrote:
    Hi,

    We currently have a strict posting policy for planet.postgresql.org
    (http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Planet_PostgreSQL), which has been
    applied in such a way that it prevents users posting anything to their
    syndicated blogs which may be remotely considered to be advertising.
    This has tripped up a number of our regular contributors in the past,
    including some senior community members who have posted technical
    content about their work which happens to be on commercial products
    around PostgreSQL.

    I'd like to propose relaxing this policy (or perhaps the
    interpretation of it) to allow useful content to be posted that
    happens to be centered around commercial products, whilst being
    careful to avoid pure advertising content which we certainly do not
    want (and should continue to be posted as news or pgsql-announce
    articles).
    While I am not against relaxing the rules, it would be a shame if the
    new rules were more vague than the old ones. The old rules, while
    strict, were very easy to mentally filter; I am worried more vague
    rules will lead to more uncertainty and perhaps arguments/hurt feelings.

    --
    Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
    EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

    + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

Related Discussions