Re: [pgsql-www] Fix for PG History web page

moving to -advocacy because I think it better belongs there from a
discussion pov

On 12/23/2015 05:50 AM, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 2:18 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
> <mailto:bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>> wrote:
>
> Our PG history web pages says talks about Postgres 8.0, which seems kind
> of old at this point:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/about/history/
>
> Today, PostgreSQL's user base is larger than ever and includes a
> sizeable group of large corporations who use it in demanding
> environments. Some of these companies such as Afilias and
> Fujitsu have
> made significant contributions to PostgreSQL's development.
> And, true to
> its roots, it continues to improve in both sophistication and
> performance, now more than ever. Version 8.0 is PostgreSQL's
> long
> ---
> awaited debut into the enterprise database market, bringing
> features
> such as tablespaces, Java stored procedures, point in time
> recovery, and
> nested transactions (savepoints). With it came a long
> awaited feature
> --- a native Windows port.
>
> Can someone update this? Can I submit a patch?
>
>
> I always think, that our history page is very outdated and requires more
> addition than you proposed. I have nothing against mentioning Afilias
> and Fujtsu, but then why we didn't acknowledged other companies ? Also,
> I think, better to discuss such things in -advocacy mailing list.
>
> btw, I think we missed great Elein posts
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20041203184254.F6767@cookie.varlena.com

In light of the upcoming 9.5 release it would be awfully nice if
somebody could work on updating /about:

* The "History" page is very outdated and clearly needs some love
* the "Awards" page is something we should imho remove completely
(clearly awards are something people care less and less about given our
maturity and seeing the most "recent" award on our website being from
2008 is imho actually very bad for our advocacy
* The case studies are very outdated and in a fair amount of cases
confusing - I think we should also remove them given nobody seem to have
the time and enthusiasm to keep them at least somewhat current, same for
the "featured users" list (most recent entry there seems to be from
~2006 and some places dont even exist any more)

So in summary my proposal is:

1. dropping the following subpages unless somebody has time to update
them because I think in the current state they are really harmful:
* "featured users"
* "case studies"
* "awards"
2. overhauling "History" and update it with what happened in the last 10
years
3. Somebody (preferably the persons who maintain the entries) should
audit "Quotes" whether they are still relevant and accurate
4. with less priority (but still) "Advantages" should be overhauled and
updated

comments? volunteers?

Stefan