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