Re: Updating Sourceforge

On 12 April 2013 00:39, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 11:28:59PM -0000, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > ...
> > > We are clearly not capable of keeping the sourceforge records up to
> date.
> > >
> > > We've had multiple different people in charge of it, and it has
> > > *never* been updated on time more than once after a new person picks
> > > it up. In this case, it's clearly lacking by *years*.
> >
> > I don't buy this at all. We regularly clear much steeper technical and
> > social hurdles than this. Why not post a help wanted ad on -general
> > about this? The echo chamber of -www is probably not the best place
> > to recruit for things outside our immediate infrastructure.
>
> How many times to we have to continue to fail until we give up and say
> it isn't important enough to maintain?

I think we're conflating two things here. The fact that we haven't
maintained it is no evidence that it isn't important and so no reason to
stop trying.

If we have volunteers, we should continue to maintain it. Clearly whoever
didn't do it before is not the right person(s) to continue, but again, no
evidence that new people wouldn't change that situation. If there is nobody
to maintain it, then clearly we should stop.

If there is evidence or some feeling that it isn't worthwhile maintaining
it, that is a different issue and one worth discussing.

Where do we list our existence? Which places should we do so, or continue
to do so? My feeling is that external listings are quite important overall,
though I accept that Sourceforge does have to prove itself as a place
worthy of attention against other possibilities.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services