Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Alternate PostgreSQL.org Design

Hi,

Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>>OK, fair enough. Now can someone explain how we can put out a release
>>>evrery 8-12 months with 200-300 changes, some very complex, and we can't
>>>get a group together to update a web site?
>>
>>Your question implies that there exists some "group". Well, I can easily name
>>people doing the work on the server. Can you name the people doing the work on
>>the website?
>
> I can name a few, but not enough, as you suggest. The point is not who
> we have but how are we making it easy for more people to get involved.

Exactly. So can you say: what makes it easy for people to contribute to
PostgreSQL-web-server? What can we do to leverage the same to
PostgreSQL-the-website?

Please also note that the whole "coding for web is not cool" talk is a red
herring: we don't have issues with new website code (which is working) and with
its design (we even have 2 competing designs!) right now. We have issues with
hosting and with content.

Let's face it: content on current postgresql.org is shit. The information is
extremely outdated [1], one cannot find useful info in obvious places like the
current Download page [2].

People also find it easier to cut a niche in postgresql.org namespace and live
in that instead of contributing to the website. See the bittorent "site" [3] as
an extreme example: it has no info other than the links to the torrents --- does
it deserve a subdomain of its own? With an outdated version of the design as well?

Well, even you yourself have a niche where you publish PostgreSQL-related info,
and that's not even in .postgresql.org namespace.

Our glorious advocacy group does nothing to fix the situation, they even did
advocacy.postgresql.org a long time ago and quit supporting it soon after. I
don't remember any content contributions for the website from these guys.

>>How much attention does the Core actually pays to the website?
>
> Well, I assumed there were enough people involved that having core in
> there wasn't going to help, but maybe I was wrong.

There are some political decisions that need to be made. The current
"showstopper" problem is the inadequate hosting of postgresql.org project. Do
you know that current postgresql.org is on a shared box? That box is incapable
of running PHP scripts at all, it runs them slower [4] than my own server [5]
which is in fact P2-233 (look at the profiling info at the bottom of the pages).

Now, I think only the core has enough authority to address the current hosting
situation. I *can* understand why you choose to do nothing about it, though.

[1] http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/related.html
[2] http://www.postgresql.org/mirrors-ftp.html
[3] http://bt.postgresql.org/
[4] http://alexey.beta.postgresql.org/
[5] http://oc.cs.msu.su/portal/