From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Robert Treat" <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] We need an Advocacy wiki |
Date: | 2007-08-04 17:13:34 |
Message-ID: | 200708041813350000@3057932291 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-www |
> ------- Original Message -------
> From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
> To: Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> Sent: 04/08/07, 17:56:32
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [pgsql-www] We need an Advocacy wiki
>
> Yes, in fact it is. It is a complete pain in the butt in comparison to
> editing a wiki. If I want a page added to the .Org I have to:
>
> A. Understand CVS
> B. Understand HTML
> C. Understand patch
Rubbish. You send the text to -www.
Using a wiki for a public website looks completely unprofessional and gives the impression of a small organisation without the resources to do things properly.
Implemented in the manner being suggested leaves us with little editorial control over what is published. I'm not so much concerned with deliberate vandalism but with ensuring all published content is factually correct, non-libellous, and consistent with the projects aims and past decisions on what we should or shouldn't publish.
Regards, Dave
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-08-04 17:16:09 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] We need an Advocacy wiki |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-08-04 17:10:07 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] We need an Advocacy wiki |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-08-04 17:16:09 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] We need an Advocacy wiki |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-08-04 17:10:07 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] We need an Advocacy wiki |