Re: Managing International Sites

Stephen Frost <[email protected]> Thu, 30 Nov 2017 09:21:17 -0500
Newsgroups	gmane.comp.db.postgresql.advocacy
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
Greetings,

* Jonathan S. Katz ([email protected]) wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:13 PM, Justin Clift <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 2017-11-29 18:50, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> My last point was for “If we do continue to link to the International
> >> sites, we should have guidelines on what content they should contain”
> >> similar to some other guidelines.  It seems like the PostgreSQL.fr
> >> <http://postgresql.fr/> and some of the other actively maintained ones
> >> could serve as a model for setting up those guidelines. Once those
> >> guidelines are published, we can give the international sites a grace
> >> period to follow the guidelines and also have a proper evaluation
> >> process for bringing new sites into the fold.
> > 
> > Hmmm, this kind of sounds like us wanting to be control freakish about
> > stuff.

This is only if people want their websites to be linked from under
PostgreSQL.Org, and it seems entirely reasonable to have appropriate
policies for that.

> > It doesn't hurt for us to have basic sanity checks (eg is the site
> > still online?, actively updated?, fairly accurate?).

To be linked under .Org as a formal international part of the project
should definitely require more than just having an online website.  My
impression from above with your 'fairly accurate' seems to indicate that
you also think there's more that should be done than just having a
website- this is about defining what 'fairly accurate' means and,
further, what's appropriate content and management of the international
website is.

> > But be careful of the desire to impose strict *requirements* much past
> > that.  Guidelines might be ok, but hard requirements (with no flexibility)
> > might be more harmful/issue-causing than otherwise.

I agree that there should be some flexibility, but the guidelines
mentioned up-thread for .fr sound like exactly what we should be doing
and, yes, if the operator of an international PG website decides that
they don't want to follow those guidelines then, at a minimum, we should
remove the link to that website.

We have 'guidelines' for how the project's name and logo are able to
used too, and it's important that we actually look out for those cases
where the usage isn't proper and address it (which we actively do).

> Should we go down this path, they would be similar to the community event / NPO guidelines, which are just that.  They impose very few requirements, more they are a set of recommendations to follow.

I'm certainly in favor of this and agree that it sounds like the .fr
guidelines would be a good place to start.

Thanks!

Stephen
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 819 B)