Re: Training approval policy on pg.org - Mailing list pgsql-www

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 9:38 PM, damien clochard <damien@dalibo.info> wrote:
> Le 10/01/2013 19:14, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.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?
>>
>
> Short answer is "Yes I expect to run most of these training sessions".

That's pretty cool, actually.


> Here's why :
>
>
> First of all, every session I've submitted is "real" in the sense that
> you can find it on our website (http://www.dalibo.com/formations) and on
> our resellers catalogs... We don't invent fake trainings just for fun.

Just to be clear. I *never* meant to indicate that you would be
inventing fake trainings in order to make things "look better" or
anything. If it came across as that, I apologize.


> That being said, I don't see why submitting "unlikely sessions" should
> be a problem at all. For instance, we trying new things this year such
> as some PostGIS trainings (with Oslandia) and a couple sessions in
> Brussels (with Open DB Team). I can't really say if this is gonna work
> or fail, because it's new for us... It's a test and it's exactly in
> cases like this that we need to publish the sessions on pg.org. It's a
> basic chicken-egg situation : you need a minimum number of attendees to
> run a training session. Noboby will register if you don't plan at least
> a few sessions. When you try new trainings, you have a high cancellation
> rate.

I agree it's not necessarily a  bad thing, but the important point
with it is that we treat everybody equally.


> 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.

--Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/