Re: Training approval policy on pg.org

On Jan 10, 2013, at 3:48 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 9:38 PM, damien clochard <damien(at)dalibo(dot)info> wrote:
>> Le 10/01/2013 19:14, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
>>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is likely because we have in the past had lots of people advertise
>>>>> training in bulk and then end up canceling most of them.
>>>>
>>>> We did. The policy was specifically to address a couple of companies
>>>> who were listing a training event every week, in order to upstage other
>>>> training companies.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> An honest question to Damien though - do you actually expect to *run*
>>> all these training sessions, or are you basicaly doing the same thing
>>> - settings up lots of options and then plan to run the most popular
>>> ones?
>>>
>> I understand there might have been a problem before with a couple of
>> trolls posting too many unlikely sessions... But this is not what we are
>> doing here. We don't believe in the Google pagerank religion. We suck at
>> SEO. We don't need to upstage anyone.
>>
>> We just want to let people know what we plan to do. If that's not
>> possible on postgresql.org, well nevermind. We'll find something else to
>> do with our time :-)
>
> Nah, I think we need a policy that actually helps people (both
> providers and consumers), without being abuse:able. Not entirely sure
> what it is. Maybe we can just increase the numbers now and it won't be
> a problem, because the market has matured.

Earlier in the thread, Damien suggested allowing 15-20 / quarter. Why not start at 10 /quarter and see what happens?

Jonathan