Thread: Status of funds.postgresql.org?
What is the status of funds.postgresql.org?
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
> -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Joshua D. Drake > Sent: 13 September 2006 23:51 > To: PostgreSQL WWW > Subject: [pgsql-www] Status of funds.postgresql.org? > > What is the status of funds.postgresql.org? I don't recall it ever being asked for. Why would we need another subsite anyway? What wrong with using <gasp> www.postgresql.org? /D
Dave, > I don't recall it ever being asked for. Why would we need another > subsite anyway? What wrong with using <gasp> www.postgresql.org? 'cause the Funds Group needs somewhere to park a CMS. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
There was a foundations.postgresql.org request time ago, confusion perhaps? g.- On 9/14/06, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > Dave, > > > I don't recall it ever being asked for. Why would we need another > > subsite anyway? What wrong with using <gasp> www.postgresql.org? > > 'cause the Funds Group needs somewhere to park a CMS. > > -- > Josh Berkus > PostgreSQL @ Sun > San Francisco > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > -- Guido Barosio ----------------------- http://www.globant.com guido.barosio@globant.com
We have had foundation.postgresql.org but since that has changed the request was put in for funds.postgresql.org to put up a new site that more clearly represents what the group has transitioned to. Gavin On Sep 14, 2006, at 1:46 PM, Guido Barosio wrote: > There was a foundations.postgresql.org request time ago, confusion > perhaps? > > g.- > > On 9/14/06, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> Dave, >> >> > I don't recall it ever being asked for. Why would we need another >> > subsite anyway? What wrong with using <gasp> www.postgresql.org? >> >> 'cause the Funds Group needs somewhere to park a CMS. >> >> -- >> Josh Berkus >> PostgreSQL @ Sun >> San Francisco >> >> ---------------------------(end of >> broadcast)--------------------------- >> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? >> >> http://archives.postgresql.org >> > > > -- > Guido Barosio > ----------------------- > http://www.globant.com > guido.barosio@globant.com > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Josh Berkus wrote: > 'cause the Funds Group needs somewhere to park a CMS. Why does the Funds Group need a separate CMS? -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> 'cause the Funds Group needs somewhere to park a CMS.
>
> Why does the Funds Group need a separate CMS?
>
Several reasons:
1. Storing of private donation records for reference between officer to
officer
2. Storing of publicized project ideas and plans
3. Dealing with web votes
Neither of these are www suitable for.
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
>>> 'cause the Funds Group needs somewhere to park a CMS. >> >> Why does the Funds Group need a separate CMS? >> > >Several reasons: > >1. Storing of private donation records for reference between >officer to officer How is this a feature of a CMS? That sounds more like the feature of a database.. (hey, we have one of those!) >2. Storing of publicized project ideas and plans That's kind of what www does good now, no? >3. Dealing with web votes I don't see how that's a specific CMS feature either. BTW, we do have a working survey system on the website now, which does pretty much that. It's not really use dbecause nobody posts new surveys, but it works. //Magnus
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 10:39:00AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I don't see how that's a specific CMS feature either. BTW, we do have a
> working survey system on the website now, which does pretty much that.
> It's not really use dbecause nobody posts new surveys, but it works.
The voting for the fundraising group needs to be authenticated. Can
the current system do that?
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
"The year's penultimate month" is not in truth a good way of saying
November.
--H.W. Fowler
Magnus Hagander wrote: >>>> 'cause the Funds Group needs somewhere to park a CMS. >>> Why does the Funds Group need a separate CMS? >>> >> Several reasons: >> >> 1. Storing of private donation records for reference between >> officer to officer > > How is this a feature of a CMS? That sounds more like the feature of a > database.. (hey, we have one of those!) Going to ignore this. > > >> 2. Storing of publicized project ideas and plans > > That's kind of what www does good now, no? > No, it doesn't. The funds group CMS is meant to be more of an intranet. > >> 3. Dealing with web votes > > I don't see how that's a specific CMS feature either. BTW, we do have a > working survey system on the website now, which does pretty much that. > It's not really use dbecause nobody posts new surveys, but it works. Votes are private and must be authenticated. The funds groups already has code for this. Joshua D. Drake > > > //Magnus > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Magnus, Look, it's pretty simple. Members of the Funds Group want to manage our own web stuff. We find that the www.postgresql.org system doesn't provide us with the features we need to manage our own stuff easily, and that other systems (e.g. Framewerk) do. We did the same for conference.postgresql.org, and it worked great. I really don't see why every request for web stuff needs to become a turf battle. --Josh Berkus
Josh Berkus wrote: > Magnus, > > Look, it's pretty simple. Members of the Funds Group want to manage our > own web stuff. We find that the www.postgresql.org system doesn't > provide us with the features we need to manage our own stuff easily, and > that other systems (e.g. Framewerk) do. > > We did the same for conference.postgresql.org, and it worked great. > > I really don't see why every request for web stuff needs to become a > turf battle. I stand corrected on this. Here is the run down: JoshB asked for spi.postgresql.org JoshD asked that it not be spi.postgresql.org JoshB and JoshD agreed that fundraising.postgresql.org would be acceptable. There was general rambling about some other names including keeping thepostgresqlfoundation.org. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-www/2006-08/msg00075.php Later the funds. name appeared. What this really comes down to those is the above. The funds group wants a place to do their work. A CMS that the funds group controls is better suited to the task. So now that we have all spent time on this can we please either: A. create funds.postgresql.org B. create fundraising.postgresql.org And point it to: http://foundation.zaius.ehpg.net/ Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
> -----Original Message----- > From: Josh Berkus [mailto:josh@agliodbs.com] > Sent: 15 September 2006 18:40 > To: Magnus Hagander > Cc: Joshua D. Drake; Peter Eisentraut; > pgsql-www@postgresql.org; Dave Page > Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Status of funds.postgresql.org? > > Magnus, > > Look, it's pretty simple. Members of the Funds Group want to > manage our > own web stuff. We find that the www.postgresql.org system doesn't > provide us with the features we need to manage our own stuff > easily, and > that other systems (e.g. Framewerk) do. > > We did the same for conference.postgresql.org, and it worked great. > > I really don't see why every request for web stuff needs to become a > turf battle. It's not a turf battle - it's about the fact that a number of years ago, it was agreed that we would consolidate and merge all the subsites that had sprung up whereever reasonable to do so. That's why advocacy went, why developer went, why odbc went, and why techdocs is in the process of going. Anyone who has worked hard towards that aim, or just agreed with the strategy is naturally going to want some seriously good justification to backtrack and create another new site in the postgresql.org domain. Regards, Dave.
> It's not a turf battle - it's about the fact that a number of years ago,
> it was agreed that we would consolidate and merge all the subsites that
> had sprung up whereever reasonable to do so. That's why advocacy went,
> why developer went, why odbc went,
?? odbc.postgresql.org jumps to pgfoundry.
Then there is:
pgadmin
jdbc
pmt
jabber
archives
search
> going. Anyone who has worked hard towards that aim, or just agreed with
> the strategy is naturally going to want some seriously good
> justification to backtrack and create another new site in the
> postgresql.org domain.
>
> Regards, Dave.
Dave,
You are on the funds group. You know the stuff we will be keeping track
of and the discussions we will be having. Why is this even a problem?
Why is this even a discussion?
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
> -----Original Message----- > From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com] > Sent: 15 September 2006 20:56 > To: Dave Page > Cc: Josh Berkus; Magnus Hagander; Peter Eisentraut; > pgsql-www@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Status of funds.postgresql.org? > > > > It's not a turf battle - it's about the fact that a number > of years ago, > > it was agreed that we would consolidate and merge all the > subsites that > > had sprung up whereever reasonable to do so. That's why > advocacy went, > > why developer went, why odbc went, > > ?? odbc.postgresql.org jumps to pgfoundry. Yes, because the old site has now gone. > > pgadmin www.pgadmin.org. Pgadmin.postgresql.org hasn't been advertised for many, many years. > jdbc The JDBC folks didn't want to lose their site, and we weren't going to force them to do so. > pmt Not a public site. > jabber Not a website. > archives Not something that can be merged into the main site without extreme pain and breakage of a helluva lot of published URLs. > search Part of the main site, but on a separate server for reasons of which you are perfectly aware. > > You are on the funds group. You know the stuff we will be > keeping track > of and the discussions we will be having. Why is this even a problem? > Why is this even a discussion? It's not a problem for me. In my two posts on the subject I have: - asked when funds.postgresql.org asked for and what was it for. - Explained why Magnus (who isn't on the funds group) might be dubious about adding a new site on what appears to -www to be a single request from you (ie. Not something that has been discussed). Regards, Dave.
> - Explained why Magnus (who isn't on the funds group) might be dubious
> about adding a new site on what appears to -www to be a single request
> from you (ie. Not something that has been discussed).
Well it is the continuation of a request from Berkus see previous email
:) but o.k. fair enough.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> Regards, Dave.
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Dave, Josh, > > going. Anyone who has worked hard towards that aim, or just agreed > > with the strategy is naturally going to want some seriously good > > justification to backtrack and create another new site in the > > postgresql.org domain. Sure, and I agree with the consolidation goal in general. Heck, I wish that www.postgresql.org supported more CMS services so that we could collapse some of the existing subdomains. However, there seems to be a difference of opinion as to what constitutes "justification." Establishing with us that we need an authenticated voting interface, and easy content management for stuff like donor information and meeting minutes, is justification. Members of this list trying to argue that we don't really need any of these things and can live without them goes way beyond justification and slides into "running the gauntlet". It's a very frustrating experience, when one is trying to set something up in time which is already inadequate. > ?? odbc.postgresql.org jumps to pgfoundry. > > Then there is: > > pgadmin > jdbc > pmt > jabber > archives > search Well, Josh, that actually support's Dave's argument. We have too many already. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
Dave, > - Explained why Magnus (who isn't on the funds group) might be dubious > about adding a new site on what appears to -www to be a single request > from you (ie. Not something that has been discussed). Actually, this was discussed about a month ago. Search the archives on "spi.postgresql.org". The only hold-up was a question of what the actual name of the domain would be. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
-----Original Message----- From: "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com> To: "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> Cc: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>; "Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net>; "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net>;"pgsql-www@postgresql.org" <pgsql-www@postgresql.org> Sent: 15/09/06 21:13 Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Status of funds.postgresql.org? > Actually, this was discussed about a month ago. Search the archives on > "spi.postgresql.org". The only hold-up was a question of what the actual > name of the domain would be. Yes, I thought it was going to be spi, but as JD knows have been somewhat busy recently so have only been skimming threads. /D
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> However, there seems to be a difference of opinion as to what constitutes
> "justification." Establishing with us that we need an authenticated
> voting interface, and easy content management for stuff like donor
> information and meeting minutes, is justification.
Um ... how does "we need service X" translate to "we need service X to
be provided on a new hostname rather than www.postgresql.org"? Maybe
I'm missing something, but I thought the objection was to hostname
proliferation not service proliferation.
regards, tom lane
Tom, > Um ... how does "we need service X" translate to "we need service X to > be provided on a new hostname rather than www.postgresql.org"? Maybe > I'm missing something, but I thought the objection was to hostname > proliferation not service proliferation. Hey, if we can host a cms with the features we need at www.postgresql.org/community/fundraising, then I'm for it. I was under the impression that that was techincally infeasable. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
-----Original Message----- From: "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com> To: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> Cc: "pgsql-www@postgresql.org" <pgsql-www@postgresql.org> Sent: 15/09/06 21:34 Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Status of funds.postgresql.org? > Hey, if we can host a cms with the features we need at www.postgresql.org/community/fundraising, then I'm for it. I was under > the impression that that was techincally infeasable. Why do we need a CMS? The only part needing some thought I can think of would be a secure voting area. /D
Dave, > Why do we need a CMS? The only part needing some thought I can think of > would be a secure voting area. 1) Secure voting according to the procedure established for the FG; 2) An easy-to-edit content section (WYSWYG CMS or Wiki), including pages available only to authenticated users. (In addition to minutes and internal docments (which could be handled through PGfoundry), we need a CMS so that the team can put together things like fundraising campaigns and the like.) Thing is, we already have both of these things set up using Gavin Roy's code. So I'd see it as a big waste of time for the WWW team to hack them toghter just to save a domain. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
Dave Page wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com>
> To: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> Cc: "pgsql-www@postgresql.org" <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>
> Sent: 15/09/06 21:34
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Status of funds.postgresql.org?
>
>> Hey, if we can host a cms with the features we need at
> www.postgresql.org/community/fundraising, then I'm for it. I was under
>> the impression that that was techincally infeasable.
>
> Why do we need a CMS? The only part needing some thought I can think of would be a secure voting area.
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> 'cause the Funds Group needs somewhere to park a CMS.
>
> Why does the Funds Group need a separate CMS?
>
Several reasons:
1. Storing of private donation records for reference between officer to
officer
2. Storing of publicized project ideas and plans
3. Dealing with web votes
Neither of these are www suitable for.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> /D
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Dave,
>
>> Why do we need a CMS? The only part needing some thought I can think of
>> would be a secure voting area.
>
> 1) Secure voting according to the procedure established for the FG;
> 2) An easy-to-edit content section (WYSWYG CMS or Wiki), including pages
> available only to authenticated users.
>
> (In addition to minutes and internal docments (which could be handled
> through PGfoundry), we need a CMS so that the team can put together things
> like fundraising campaigns and the like.)
>
> Thing is, we already have both of these things set up using Gavin Roy's
> code. So I'd see it as a big waste of time for the WWW team to hack them
> toghter just to save a domain.
>
Also, the WWW team doesn't have the resources to keep up with the likely
volume of content changes that will happen on this site from a week to
week and month to month basis.
Unlike www which is a fairly static site, the funds site will likely
change often.
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > So now that we have all spent time on this can we please either: > > A. create funds.postgresql.org > B. create fundraising.postgresql.org > > And point it to: > > http://foundation.zaius.ehpg.net/ This was all I needed ... I pointed both at that URL ... that way either can be used ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> So now that we have all spent time on this can we please either: >> >> A. create funds.postgresql.org >> B. create fundraising.postgresql.org >> >> And point it to: >> >> http://foundation.zaius.ehpg.net/ > > This was all I needed ... I pointed both at that URL ... that way either > can be used ... Thank you. Joshua D. Drake > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org > Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
As some of you know, I've been out of the country and thus not answering all the emails in a thread. Which may be a good thing, really :-P Anyway. Going to answer the factual questions only, don't want to re-iterate the debate you've had already. Just facts for future situations. > > I don't see how that's a specific CMS feature either. BTW, > we do have > > a working survey system on the website now, which does > pretty much that. > > It's not really use dbecause nobody posts new surveys, but it works. > > The voting for the fundraising group needs to be > authenticated. Can the current system do that? Today, no. Less than 10 minutes work to make it do it though, since we already have an authentication framework that just needs to be enabled. Related question (ok, so I don't just have aswers, so sue me): Will the funds CMS integrate with the existing authentication system, or will users be required to sign up for more than one account? //Magnus
> > Why do we need a CMS? The only part needing some thought I > can think > > of would be a secure voting area. > > 1) Secure voting according to the procedure established for the FG; Since I don't know the procedure, can't comment on if we can do that. > 2) An easy-to-edit content section (WYSWYG CMS or Wiki), This we can already do. > including pages available only to authenticated users. This we cannot currently do, but it would probably be fairly easy to do it. > (In addition to minutes and internal docments (which could be > handled through PGfoundry), we need a CMS so that the team > can put together things like fundraising campaigns and the like.) Right. So the "intranet" part of things. Wasn't aware of that requirement. Sorta like the developers wiki, but for fundraising group. Got it. //Magnus
> > Thing is, we already have both of these things set up using > Gavin Roy's > > code. So I'd see it as a big waste of time for the WWW > team to hack them > > toghter just to save a domain. > > > > Also, the WWW team doesn't have the resources to keep up with > the likely volume of content changes that will happen on this > site from a week to week and month to month basis. > > Unlike www which is a fairly static site, the funds site will > likely change often. Now, I would like to see that as an argument *for* integrating it - simply because that would give more hands working on the day-to-day parts of -www. Which definitly wouldn't be a bad thing. But I'm certainly not going to push it... //Magnus
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 02:02:10PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> Thing is, we already have both of these things set up using Gavin Roy's
> code.
This is the second time I've seen that argument in this thread, and I
can't see it. Framewerk turned out to be a hit-by-bus technology for
us in the conference web site, which is why none of the materials
from the conference are up yet.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
Unfortunately reformatting the Internet is a little more painful
than reformatting your hard drive when it gets out of whack.
--Scott Morris
Only because no one offered to help and I've not had the time. Not because of access to the site, nor by the ability to get the source or read docs. Gavin On Sep 16, 2006, at 5:57 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 02:02:10PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >> >> Thing is, we already have both of these things set up using Gavin >> Roy's >> code. > > This is the second time I've seen that argument in this thread, and I > can't see it. Framewerk turned out to be a hit-by-bus technology for > us in the conference web site, which is why none of the materials > from the conference are up yet. > > A > > -- > Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca > Unfortunately reformatting the Internet is a little more painful > than reformatting your hard drive when it gets out of whack. > --Scott Morris > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Magnus, > > 2) An easy-to-edit content section (WYSWYG CMS or Wiki), > > This we can already do. Techdocs? That's still too buggy to actually use. If you ever finish it, then we can discuss that as an alternative. > > including pages available only to authenticated users. > > This we cannot currently do, but it would probably be fairly easy to do > it. Our concern here is that dynamic functionality in the main site takes years to complete due to lack of resources -- techdocs, for example. We don't want a system two years from now, we want one tommorrow. And we don't write brand-new code for www when we already have code on another system that works right now. > Right. So the "intranet" part of things. Wasn't aware of that > requirement. Sorta like the developers wiki, but for fundraising group. > Got it. Intra and extra. We'd also use it for fundraising campaigns, like "Contribute to SPI so that we can have a booth at FOSS.in!" or "Contribute to SPI so that we can fund recursive queries!". Also for doing things like listing our voting members, explaining how SPI money is managed, etc. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
fundraising.postgresql.org is up and running, and has the content copied over from foundation. The site menu hasn't been built because all of the content is specific to the foundation and I didnt want to activate it on the live site. I've not modified the headers from the main postgresql.org site. If they are to be modified, just let me know what to change them to or send me replacements. If those of you on the pgsql-www team that should have access (Say Dave, Robert, etc?) let me know and I'll set you up with a shell you can sudo from to get to it. I will be taking foundation. down soon. If someone in the funds group other than Josh B and Joshua Drake (say Robert Treat) should need/want admin access to the CMS, please let me know. All of the old foundation logins will still work. Gavin On Sep 16, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > Magnus, > >>> 2) An easy-to-edit content section (WYSWYG CMS or Wiki), >> >> This we can already do. > > Techdocs? That's still too buggy to actually use. If you ever > finish it, > then we can discuss that as an alternative. > >>> including pages available only to authenticated users. >> >> This we cannot currently do, but it would probably be fairly easy >> to do >> it. > > Our concern here is that dynamic functionality in the main site > takes years to > complete due to lack of resources -- techdocs, for example. We > don't want a > system two years from now, we want one tommorrow. And we don't write > brand-new code for www when we already have code on another system > that works > right now. > >> Right. So the "intranet" part of things. Wasn't aware of that >> requirement. Sorta like the developers wiki, but for fundraising >> group. >> Got it. > > Intra and extra. We'd also use it for fundraising campaigns, like > "Contribute to SPI so that we can have a booth at FOSS.in!" or > "Contribute > to SPI so that we can fund recursive queries!". Also for doing > things like > listing our voting members, explaining how SPI money is managed, etc. > > -- > Josh Berkus > PostgreSQL @ Sun > San Francisco > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 10:33:44AM -0700, Gavin M. Roy wrote:
> Only because no one offered to help and I've not had the time.
Sorry, no. I offered to help, more than once, but was told that only
you knew how to make it go. Maybe that was false; I dunno. I
emphasise that this is _not_ an attack on you. Also, I have to say
that Framewerk looks to me to be promising: I was impressed with the
bits that I saw working, once I figured them out. But I did have to
figure them out, because docs were not so great, and there were parts
that I was told needed your magic.
Now, part of this was a problem because the site was already in
production when I learned it. I assume a change to different
software would be managed differently than that. But at the moment,
saying Framewerk "just works" is, IMO, overselling.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
I remember when computers were frustrating because they *did* exactly what
you told them to. That actually seems sort of quaint now.
--J.D. Baldwin
Josh, > > > 2) An easy-to-edit content section (WYSWYG CMS or Wiki), > > > > This we can already do. > > Techdocs? That's still too buggy to actually use. If you > ever finish it, > then we can discuss that as an alternative. I have repeatedly asked you to put together a list of what's not working, but all I hear is "it's not working". I know there are issues, specifically with tags that can get in that are not allowed. But nobody has told me *what* tags those are, and usually when I do something in it I don't get exposed to them, so I just don't know. As long as I don't know what to fix, it's kinda hard to fix it. > > This we cannot currently do, but it would probably be > fairly easy to > > do it. > > Our concern here is that dynamic functionality in the main > site takes years to complete due to lack of resources -- > techdocs, for example. We don't want a > system two years from now, we want one tommorrow. The new techdocs stuff took a couple of weeks, once I started on it. What took time was the discussion wether we should hvae a wiki, or move to a non-custom CMS, or whatever. Coding took a couple of weeks, and that was coding *only* in a couple of spare hours now and then in the evenings. > And we don't write > brand-new code for www when we already have code on another > system that works right now. That's a good point, though. //Magnus
Tom Lane wrote: > Um ... how does "we need service X" translate to "we need service X > to be provided on a new hostname rather than www.postgresql.org"? > Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought the objection was to > hostname proliferation not service proliferation. I'm wondering not only about hostnames but about hosts. Who is going to manage these boxes? -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Um ... how does "we need service X" translate to "we need service X
>> to be provided on a new hostname rather than www.postgresql.org"?
>> Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought the objection was to
>> hostname proliferation not service proliferation.
>
> I'm wondering not only about hostnames but about hosts. Who is going to
> manage these boxes?
Which boxes? I can tell you that the following machines are managed:
pmt
jabber
search
archives
Directly by CMD or CMD + Community (archives is cmd only)
We also help in the administration of pgfoundry
funds/fundraising is managed by Gavin and I have shell access to
the funds account so I can perform offsite backups and site maintenance.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Magnus, > I have repeatedly asked you to put together a list of what's not > working, but all I hear is "it's not working". I know there are issues, > specifically with tags that can get in that are not allowed. But nobody > has told me *what* tags those are, and usually when I do something in it > I don't get exposed to them, so I just don't know. As long as I don't > know what to fix, it's kinda hard to fix it. OK, will do. --Josh