Re: Planet posting policy

Le 30 janvier 2012 15:57, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> 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 <peter@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> > On 29 January 2012 18:42, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> 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