On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 08:57:02PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:14:53AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> >> WWW,
>> >>
>> >> "8 New Oracle compatibility features in EnterpriseDB PPAS 9.2 Beta"
>> >>
>> >> Last I checked, the end result of discussion on this list was that no
>> >> blogging about proprietary forks of PostgreSQL was permitted on Planet.
>> >> It's a policy I disagreed with, but if that's our policy, we should
>> >> follow it.
>> >>
>> >> Since Ras seems to be a new blogger, someone from WWW should just inform
>> >> him of the policy and remove the post.
>> >
>> > Yes, I assumed someone had already done that, so I didn't say anything,
>> > but I agree.
>>
>> Does it actually violate the policy though? It's pretty darn vague...
>> I agree it's very much a borderline so somebody should probably send
>> him a warning about it, but I'm not sure it's actually a strict
>> violation?
>
> Would the post be interesting to anyone not using the EDB commercial
> product? I didn't think it would be.
Well, the policy says "All blogs should be about PostgreSQL or closely
related technologies.". Which it kind of is, no? And it's not
advertising, I think.
Though I guess it might qualify as an ad, yes.
I've hidden the post for now. Can someone write up a nice explanation
to the author on why?
-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/