Обсуждение: Wiki clarification
I'd appreciate some clarification on usage of the Wiki. When it was first introduced, the usage guidelines were a bit vague - and as I recall a statement was made (+ -) by Josh Berkus that ~ as long as it had something to do with PostgreSQL, it would be ok. My contributions to PostgreSQL have not been enormous by any means, though with printing of full color, multiple page documents for a couple of conferences + a bit of money when I have it, I suspect the total would be $5,000 or more. Perhaps my expectations are a bit high, but I would think that level would at least warrant the courtesy of an email before a wiki page was deleted and locked. At my age - ten hours of time is significant. -- Mike Ellsworth
On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 11:40 -0500, Mike Ellsworth wrote: > I'd appreciate some clarification on usage of the Wiki. > > When it was first introduced, the usage guidelines were a bit vague - > and as I recall a statement was made (+ -) > by Josh Berkus that ~ as long as it had something to do with > PostgreSQL, it would be ok. > > My contributions to PostgreSQL have not been enormous by any means, > though with printing of full color, multiple page documents for a > couple of conferences + a bit of money when I have it, I suspect the > total would be $5,000 or more. > > Perhaps my expectations are a bit high, but I would think that level > would at least warrant the courtesy of an email before a wiki page was > deleted and locked. > > At my age - ten hours of time is significant. Mike, Can you elaborate a bit. What wiki page was deleted and locked? JD > > -- > Mike Ellsworth > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
Mike Ellsworth wrote: > I'd appreciate some clarification on usage of the Wiki. > > When it was first introduced, the usage guidelines were a bit vague - > and as I recall a statement was made (+ -) > by Josh Berkus that ~ as long as it had something to do with > PostgreSQL, it would be ok. > There are two sets of policies here. The one at http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_Wiki:About suggests the Wiki is intended for "user-contributed PostgreSQL documentation", which your page didn't quite seem to be. So by that one alone, it would be inappropriate. The rest of the policies for the project are listed at http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Policies Now, there really should be a "Wiki approval policy" for commercial content there. What Josh told you may in fact be the ultimate policy here, and there is already some other material on the wiki that is in the same fuzzy area your page appears to be. But the line here is not clearly documented yet to contributors or to site moderators. > Perhaps my expectations are a bit high, but I would think that level > would at least warrant the courtesy of an email before a wiki page was > deleted and locked. > Not really deleted--cleared and locked. Had it really been deleted I wouldn't have been able to restore the page to operation, which I just did: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Younicycle is back as you left it before. Sorry about blocking your content for a bit here, but I didn't have any idea who had put that info there. It was locked until we figured out who did, or whoever it was identified themselves after seeing the page was unavailable. In retrospect, I should have used the E-mail contact system on the wiki itself to contact you, and left a more clear suggestion on the cleared page itself as to what you should do. I'll make sure that's incorporated into the recommend procedure for when we run into a page that may not follow project policies next time. You are literally the first case like this that's happened--something commercial appeared and it wasn't obvious who posted it--so the right way to handle things hadn't been considered and documented yet. My apologies for the temporary outage here, and I would recommend you fill out your user profile at http://wiki.postgresql.org/index.php?title=User:Henryhemma&action=edit to make it clear who you are and how you can be reached so we don't have any confusion there in the future. As far as further working on that page, I would recommend waiting until you get a clear ruling here on the appropriateness of your page for the Wiki before spending any more time working on it. I doubt the page needs to get deleted altogether such that you'll lose all of the time you put into it. It may just need to be rewritten to be consistent with the goal of the wiki--user-oriented documentation related to PostgreSQL. That's not really my decision to make though, just giving my personal opinion. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Mike Ellsworth wrote: >> >> I'd appreciate some clarification on usage of the Wiki. >> >> When it was first introduced, the usage guidelines were a bit vague - >> and as I recall a statement was made (+ -) >> by Josh Berkus that ~ as long as it had something to do with >> PostgreSQL, it would be ok. >> > > There are two sets of policies here. The one at > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_Wiki:About suggests the Wiki is > intended for "user-contributed PostgreSQL documentation", which your page > didn't quite seem to be. So by that one alone, it would be inappropriate. > The rest of the policies for the project are listed at > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Policies > Now, there really should be a "Wiki approval policy" for commercial content > there. What Josh told you may in fact be the ultimate policy here, and > there is already some other material on the wiki that is in the same fuzzy > area your page appears to be. But the line here is not clearly documented > yet to contributors or to site moderators. > >> Perhaps my expectations are a bit high, but I would think that level >> would at least warrant the courtesy of an email before a wiki page was >> deleted and locked. >> > > Not really deleted--cleared and locked. Had it really been deleted I > wouldn't have been able to restore the page to operation, which I just did: > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Younicycle is back as you left it before. > > Sorry about blocking your content for a bit here, but I didn't have any idea > who had put that info there. It was locked until we figured out who did, or > whoever it was identified themselves after seeing the page was unavailable. > In retrospect, I should have used the E-mail contact system on the wiki > itself to contact you, and left a more clear suggestion on the cleared page > itself as to what you should do. I'll make sure that's incorporated into > the recommend procedure for when we run into a page that may not follow > project policies next time. You are literally the first case like this > that's happened--something commercial appeared and it wasn't obvious who > posted it--so the right way to handle things hadn't been considered and > documented yet. > My apologies for the temporary outage here, and I would recommend you fill > out your user profile at > http://wiki.postgresql.org/index.php?title=User:Henryhemma&action=edit to > make it clear who you are and how you can be reached so we don't have any > confusion there in the future. > > As far as further working on that page, I would recommend waiting until you > get a clear ruling here on the appropriateness of your page for the Wiki > before spending any more time working on it. I doubt the page needs to get > deleted altogether such that you'll lose all of the time you put into it. > It may just need to be rewritten to be consistent with the goal of the > wiki--user-oriented documentation related to PostgreSQL. That's not really > my decision to make though, just giving my personal opinion. > > -- > Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD > PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us > > > Thanks. I enjoyed your book. -- Mike Ellsworth
On 2/25/11 11:10 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
> As far as further working on that page, I would recommend waiting until
> you get a clear ruling here on the appropriateness of your page for the
> Wiki before spending any more time working on it. I doubt the page
> needs to get deleted altogether such that you'll lose all of the time
> you put into it. It may just need to be rewritten to be consistent with
> the goal of the wiki--user-oriented documentation related to
> PostgreSQL. That's not really my decision to make though, just giving
> my personal opinion.
I'm more wondering what Mike expects to get out of a page on the wiki.
It would actually be appropriate (in my opinion) to have a section of
the wiki where people could expand on commercial applications which were
based on/ran on PostgreSQL if they wanted. But barring someone putting
up and index page for that kind of content, the only way someone is
going to find the Younicycle page is either through this discussion, or
through watching the latest changes page.
-- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > On 2/25/11 11:10 AM, Greg Smith wrote: >> As far as further working on that page, I would recommend waiting until >> you get a clear ruling here on the appropriateness of your page for the >> Wiki before spending any more time working on it. I doubt the page >> needs to get deleted altogether such that you'll lose all of the time >> you put into it. It may just need to be rewritten to be consistent with >> the goal of the wiki--user-oriented documentation related to >> PostgreSQL. That's not really my decision to make though, just giving >> my personal opinion. > > I'm more wondering what Mike expects to get out of a page on the wiki. > > It would actually be appropriate (in my opinion) to have a section of > the wiki where people could expand on commercial applications which were > based on/ran on PostgreSQL if they wanted. But barring someone putting > up and index page for that kind of content, the only way someone is > going to find the Younicycle page is either through this discussion, or > through watching the latest changes page. Yeah, this seems pretty random compared to the rest of what we have on there, and unless we have some way of organizing such content in a useful fashion I don't think there's much point. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 04:52, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > On 2/25/11 11:10 AM, Greg Smith wrote: >> As far as further working on that page, I would recommend waiting until >> you get a clear ruling here on the appropriateness of your page for the >> Wiki before spending any more time working on it. I doubt the page >> needs to get deleted altogether such that you'll lose all of the time >> you put into it. It may just need to be rewritten to be consistent with >> the goal of the wiki--user-oriented documentation related to >> PostgreSQL. That's not really my decision to make though, just giving >> my personal opinion. > > I'm more wondering what Mike expects to get out of a page on the wiki. > > It would actually be appropriate (in my opinion) to have a section of > the wiki where people could expand on commercial applications which were > based on/ran on PostgreSQL if they wanted. But barring someone putting We already have such a section on the main website, I suggest we keep just one. If a vendor wants a wiki, they can use their own wiki - and link it from our main website. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 6:13 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 04:52, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> On 2/25/11 11:10 AM, Greg Smith wrote: >>> As far as further working on that page, I would recommend waiting until >>> you get a clear ruling here on the appropriateness of your page for the >>> Wiki before spending any more time working on it. I doubt the page >>> needs to get deleted altogether such that you'll lose all of the time >>> you put into it. It may just need to be rewritten to be consistent with >>> the goal of the wiki--user-oriented documentation related to >>> PostgreSQL. That's not really my decision to make though, just giving >>> my personal opinion. >> >> I'm more wondering what Mike expects to get out of a page on the wiki. A small amount of credibility, with reasonable - not excessive - wordsmithing & oversight. You can't create a page on wikipedia.org if you own the product. >> It would actually be appropriate (in my opinion) to have a section of >> the wiki where people could expand on commercial applications which were >> based on/ran on PostgreSQL if they wanted. Yes, this is what I was hoping would evolve. Advertising was removed 6 or 7 years ago & Blogs from the main page are heavily scrutinized for any hint of self-promotion. A simple list within the wiki would be enough, with each wiki page 'owner' linking off of that. I see no reason why that list could not also include "Independent Developers". The main site encourages ISV's to consider PG. The small change mentioned above is more symbolic than anything. It says - 'you don't need to be Skype, Enterprise DB (or whoever) to develop a commercial product with PG'. The 1 page of low key promotional material - written in a basic wiki style - allows a small group to get a foothold. Five years from now, one of those small commercial projects may be in a position where their contributions to PG could be substantial. Fertile ground, a couple of seeds, a little water. If it dies, delete it. If weeds sprout, pull it. IMO - the recurring thread about the one-click installer keeps coming up because of perceived preferential treatment. When Ads were removed and the site was changed years ago, I think the pendulum went a bit too far. Let it swing back a little. As for my page - I truly don't give * at this point. When I asked someone in my office to get back to work on it & was told it was locked, my first thought was - if a wiki page about a product built on PG isn't safe here, then where? Anyway, the 1 click a month we currently receive will not be missed. > We already have such a section on the main website, I suggest we keep > just one. If a vendor wants a wiki, they can use their own wiki - and > link it from our main website. lost me on this. I think you're suggesting Vendors set up wiki software for one page on their own site. Instead, I think it makes more sense for vendors to have a link from their own site - to the PG wiki. Maybe I misunderstand. -- Mike Ellsworth
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 16:24, Mike Ellsworth <younicycle@gmail.com> wrote: >> We already have such a section on the main website, I suggest we keep >> just one. If a vendor wants a wiki, they can use their own wiki - and >> link it from our main website. > > lost me on this. I think you're suggesting Vendors set up wiki > software for one page on their own site. Instead, I think it makes > more sense for vendors to have a link from their own site - to the PG > wiki. Maybe I misunderstand. To clarify what I'm suggesting - I'm suggesting vendors set up a page about their own product somewhere on their own site, be it a wiki or something else. If they don't have one, on a simple google site or even a github wiki. postgresql.org will then link to this from our product catalogue, which is on the website, just like we do for other commercial products. That way we (the project) provide equal level of visibility for third party software, and it's entirely up to the vendor exactly what type of information to keep on the page/wiki. So basically the same thing, except I think the vendor should keep their info and postgresql link to it, rather than the other way around. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 16:24, Mike Ellsworth <younicycle@gmail.com> wrote: >>> We already have such a section on the main website, I suggest we keep >>> just one. If a vendor wants a wiki, they can use their own wiki - and >>> link it from our main website. >> >> lost me on this. I think you're suggesting Vendors set up wiki >> software for one page on their own site. Instead, I think it makes >> more sense for vendors to have a link from their own site - to the PG >> wiki. Maybe I misunderstand. > > To clarify what I'm suggesting - I'm suggesting vendors set up a page > about their own product somewhere on their own site, be it a wiki or > something else. If they don't have one, on a simple google site or > even a github wiki. > > postgresql.org will then link to this from our product catalogue, > which is on the website, just like we do for other commercial > products. That way we (the project) provide equal level of visibility > for third party software, and it's entirely up to the vendor exactly > what type of information to keep on the page/wiki. > > So basically the same thing, except I think the vendor should keep > their info and postgresql link to it, rather than the other way > around. > > -- > Magnus Hagander > Me: http://www.hagander.net/ > Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ > As long as there would be room for a 120 char description, sounds great to me. -- Mike Ellsworth
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 > To clarify what I'm suggesting - I'm suggesting vendors set up a page > about their own product somewhere on their own site, be it a wiki or > something else. If they don't have one, on a simple google site or > even a github wiki. > > postgresql.org will then link to this from our product catalogue, > which is on the website, just like we do for other commercial > products. That way we (the project) provide equal level of visibility > for third party software, and it's entirely up to the vendor exactly > what type of information to keep on the page/wiki. - -1. Our software catalog is nowhere near as visible as our wiki. > So basically the same thing, except I think the vendor should keep > their info and postgresql link to it, rather than the other way > around. Not sure why the wiki can't have it as well. It's not like there is a limit on the number of pages. Also, would this apply only to *commercial* third-party software? Because we have things like this: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Londiste http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PGXN http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/TurnKey_PostgreSQL Not to mention things like this: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Tungsten In short, I'd like to see more on the wiki, commerical or no, I think we're a mature enough community to be able to self-police any blatant commercial abuse of the wiki. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201102261607 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAk1pa+wACgkQvJuQZxSWSsgSZQCfc+ePJANSCfnFmTdJGBmgNEqt 1BQAn0xzysnIJfP1K7b3R8gIM66cvLRH =fcUE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 27 February 2011 08:09, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com> wrote: > Not sure why the wiki can't have it as well. It's not like there is a > limit on the number of pages. Also, would this apply only to > *commercial* third-party software? Because we have things like this: > ... > > In short, I'd like to see more on the wiki, commerical or no, I think we're > a mature enough community to be able to self-police any blatant commercial > abuse of the wiki. For what it's worth, guys, it would be trivially easy to create a little boilerplate-style wiki template that says "This page describes a commerical product, and does not necessarily reflect a view or endorsement by the PostgreSQL community", or whatever other wording that might help to allay concerns. It's then just a matter of mandating that these commercial pages include the template. From my own point of view, I'm not even sure what a "commercial abuse" of the wiki would consist of. If a company wants to advertise/brag/hype/promote a product which is based on Postgres on the wiki, how is that a detriment to the project, exactly? Cheers, BJ
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27 February 2011 08:09, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com> wrote: >> Not sure why the wiki can't have it as well. It's not like there is a >> limit on the number of pages. Also, would this apply only to >> *commercial* third-party software? Because we have things like this: >> > ... >> >> In short, I'd like to see more on the wiki, commerical or no, I think we're >> a mature enough community to be able to self-police any blatant commercial >> abuse of the wiki. > > For what it's worth, guys, it would be trivially easy to create a > little boilerplate-style wiki template that says "This page describes > a commerical product, and does not necessarily reflect a view or > endorsement by the PostgreSQL community", or whatever other wording > that might help to allay concerns. It's then just a matter of > mandating that these commercial pages include the template. > > From my own point of view, I'm not even sure what a "commercial abuse" > of the wiki would consist of. If a company wants to > advertise/brag/hype/promote a product which is based on Postgres on > the wiki, how is that a detriment to the project, exactly? Yeah, good point. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Sat, 2011-02-26 at 21:55 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > From my own point of view, I'm not even sure what a "commercial abuse" > > of the wiki would consist of. If a company wants to > > advertise/brag/hype/promote a product which is based on Postgres on > > the wiki, how is that a detriment to the project, exactly? > > Yeah, good point. Exactly, we are known to be a commercially friendly project -- BSD License and all. JD > > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 04:32, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > On Sat, 2011-02-26 at 21:55 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > >> > From my own point of view, I'm not even sure what a "commercial abuse" >> > of the wiki would consist of. If a company wants to >> > advertise/brag/hype/promote a product which is based on Postgres on >> > the wiki, how is that a detriment to the project, exactly? >> >> Yeah, good point. > > Exactly, we are known to be a commercially friendly project -- BSD > License and all. Sure. We'll still need a pretty well-defined policy, though, IMNSHO. We need something to point to when $company dumps copies of all their marketing material in there, for example, making the search even worse than it is now (if that's even possible :P). -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 22:09, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com> wrote: > >> To clarify what I'm suggesting - I'm suggesting vendors set up a page >> about their own product somewhere on their own site, be it a wiki or >> something else. If they don't have one, on a simple google site or >> even a github wiki. >> >> postgresql.org will then link to this from our product catalogue, >> which is on the website, just like we do for other commercial >> products. That way we (the project) provide equal level of visibility >> for third party software, and it's entirely up to the vendor exactly >> what type of information to keep on the page/wiki. > > - -1. Our software catalog is nowhere near as visible as our wiki. If that is the case, I propose we remove the software catalog. Having both only contributes to confusion for the users. Should we also move things like lists of support providers etc to the wiki, so the companies can put more of their info in there? Seems to be a pretty similar case? > In short, I'd like to see more on the wiki, commerical or no, I think we're > a mature enough community to be able to self-police any blatant commercial > abuse of the wiki. As long as you define where the line is between "use" and "abuse". Especially in the context of the community, that's not necessarily trivial. Some people consider the one page posted there to be abuse. Some people consider a single blog post including a link to a commercial product abuse. Others don't. So it needs to be defined - both for those poor bastards who are supposed to police it, and for those who will eventually end up getting policed because they didn't know where the line was. With a clear policy, it makes life easier for both those. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 22:09, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com> wrote: >> >>> To clarify what I'm suggesting - I'm suggesting vendors set up a page >>> about their own product somewhere on their own site, be it a wiki or >>> something else. If they don't have one, on a simple google site or >>> even a github wiki. >>> >>> postgresql.org will then link to this from our product catalogue, >>> which is on the website, just like we do for other commercial >>> products. That way we (the project) provide equal level of visibility >>> for third party software, and it's entirely up to the vendor exactly >>> what type of information to keep on the page/wiki. >> >> - -1. Our software catalog is nowhere near as visible as our wiki. > > If that is the case, I propose we remove the software catalog. Having > both only contributes to confusion for the users. > > Should we also move things like lists of support providers etc to the > wiki, so the companies can put more of their info in there? Seems to > be a pretty similar case? I would object to doing that - we often get submission from companies that aren't relevant, and currently they never hit the site as they have to be moderated first. If we allow commercial content to be added to the wiki, then we have to start proactively policing the wiki. It's hard enough to keep people moderating reactively in response to emails sent by the submission forms, let alone having them check the wiki daily. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 12:24 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Sure. We'll still need a pretty well-defined policy, though, IMNSHO. > We need something to point to when $company dumps copies of all their > marketing material in there, for example, making the search even worse > than it is now (if that's even possible :P). Oh definitely and I also think we should have a license policy. E.g; stuff you place on the wiki is covered under X license (or a choice of licenses). JD > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 Magnus asks: > Should we also move things like lists of support providers etc to the > wiki, so the companies can put more of their info in there? Seems to > be a pretty similar case? I don't know. It is tempting, as it is far easier to edit the wiki than it is to gain the rights to the catalog and then use it. My vote is for wiki-fying the catalog and then locking the pages. (Have you ever seen the software catalog show up in a Google search?) >> In short, I'd like to see more on the wiki, commerical or no, I think >> we're a mature enough community to be able to self-police any blatant >> commercial abuse of the wiki. > As long as you define where the line is between "use" and "abuse". > Especially in the context of the community, that's not necessarily > trivial. Some people consider the one page posted there to be abuse. > Some people consider a single blog post including a link to a > commercial product abuse. Others don't. So it needs to be defined - > both for those poor bastards who are supposed to police it, and for > those who will eventually end up getting policed because they didn't > know where the line was. With a clear policy, it makes life easier for > both those. Sure, and that's why I said "blatant". I'm all for a good policy, but I also think the project is better served in the long run with a permissive rather than a restrictive policy. We're a non-profit project, so to speak, but the survival and growth of commerical entities supporting Postgres should be encouraged. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/ PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201103012235 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAk1tuzgACgkQvJuQZxSWSshdbwCgvVmdMbaiepYRtWBRokNY70w5 G8gAn0stnkz1jMpinCDWtqMddTYAjzir =T811 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----