Обсуждение: Stalled news about ora2pg 11 on pg.org
Hi, Last week, I submitted an article on pg.org (id #1459) about the release of ora2pg11. The content is pretty much the same as the mail I sent to -announce on the same day : http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/516533D0.2090906@dalibo.info I see the article is not approved. Did I miss something ? Is there any reason for this ? Regards, -- damien
On 15 April 2013 19:34, damien clochard <damien@dalibo.info> wrote: > Last week, I submitted an article on pg.org (id #1459) about the release > of ora2pg11. The content is pretty much the same as the mail I sent to > -announce on the same day : > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/516533D0.2090906@dalibo.info > > I see the article is not approved. Did I miss something ? Is there any > reason for this ? 2ndQuadrant has experienced significant delays in at least 3 cases also. There is definitely a problem somewhere there. Perhaps we should make all posts wait the same length of time, to allow reasonable time to decide whether posts are suitable? 72 hours seems like a reasonable time for this. That way it would allow (and require) some planning. --Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Hi, On Mon, 2013-04-15 at 20:34 +0200, damien clochard wrote: > Last week, I submitted an article on pg.org (id #1459) about the release > of ora2pg11. The content is pretty much the same as the mail I sent to > -announce on the same day : > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/516533D0.2090906@dalibo.info > > I see the article is not approved. Did I miss something ? Is there any > reason for this ? Approved. Probably the moderators (including me) missed it. Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
> 2ndQuadrant has experienced significant delays in at least 3 cases > also. There is definitely a problem somewhere there. The delay is called "volunteer moderators who have day jobs". > Perhaps we should make all posts wait the same length of time, to > allow reasonable time to decide whether posts are suitable? 72 hours > seems like a reasonable time for this. Who is going to do this strictly time-limited approving? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:52:54PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > > 2ndQuadrant has experienced significant delays in at least 3 cases > > also. There is definitely a problem somewhere there. > > The delay is called "volunteer moderators who have day jobs". > > > Perhaps we should make all posts wait the same length of time, to > > allow reasonable time to decide whether posts are suitable? 72 hours > > seems like a reasonable time for this. > > Who is going to do this strictly time-limited approving? So it auto-approves after 72 hours? I found this proposal vague. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:52:54PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >> >> > 2ndQuadrant has experienced significant delays in at least 3 cases >> > also. There is definitely a problem somewhere there. >> >> The delay is called "volunteer moderators who have day jobs". >> >> > Perhaps we should make all posts wait the same length of time, to >> > allow reasonable time to decide whether posts are suitable? 72 hours >> > seems like a reasonable time for this. >> >> Who is going to do this strictly time-limited approving? > > So it auto-approves after 72 hours? I found this proposal vague. If anything automatic were to happen after 72 hours, the reasonable thing would be a rejection. --Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:52:54PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> > >> > 2ndQuadrant has experienced significant delays in at least 3 cases > >> > also. There is definitely a problem somewhere there. > >> > >> The delay is called "volunteer moderators who have day jobs". > >> > >> > Perhaps we should make all posts wait the same length of time, to > >> > allow reasonable time to decide whether posts are suitable? 72 hours > >> > seems like a reasonable time for this. > >> > >> Who is going to do this strictly time-limited approving? > > > > So it auto-approves after 72 hours? I found this proposal vague. > > If anything automatic were to happen after 72 hours, the reasonable > thing would be a rejection. ... but that's not more helpful than not doing anything, because then the submitter needs to submit again. This creates a busy loop on which submitter needs to watch status of his submitted news until it gets approved. I think the idea behind 72-hour auto-approve is that if it's obvious spam someone will quickly reject it, and if it's not spam then it's not worth rejecting. I don't think this is very palatable either. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On 15 April 2013 21:00, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:52:54PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >>> >>> > 2ndQuadrant has experienced significant delays in at least 3 cases >>> > also. There is definitely a problem somewhere there. >>> >>> The delay is called "volunteer moderators who have day jobs". >>> >>> > Perhaps we should make all posts wait the same length of time, to >>> > allow reasonable time to decide whether posts are suitable? 72 hours >>> > seems like a reasonable time for this. >>> >>> Who is going to do this strictly time-limited approving? >> >> So it auto-approves after 72 hours? I found this proposal vague. > > If anything automatic were to happen after 72 hours, the reasonable > thing would be a rejection. *because* volunteers have day jobs, I was suggesting that we put in a time delay so that even if approved, it still takes 72 hours to take effect. And of course be default reject, not default approve. That way nobody will notice that some things take 10 mins and others extended numbers of days. --Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:52:54PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >> >> >> >> > 2ndQuadrant has experienced significant delays in at least 3 cases >> >> > also. There is definitely a problem somewhere there. >> >> >> >> The delay is called "volunteer moderators who have day jobs". >> >> >> >> > Perhaps we should make all posts wait the same length of time, to >> >> > allow reasonable time to decide whether posts are suitable? 72 hours >> >> > seems like a reasonable time for this. >> >> >> >> Who is going to do this strictly time-limited approving? >> > >> > So it auto-approves after 72 hours? I found this proposal vague. >> >> If anything automatic were to happen after 72 hours, the reasonable >> thing would be a rejection. > > ... but that's not more helpful than not doing anything, because then > the submitter needs to submit again. This creates a busy loop on which > submitter needs to watch status of his submitted news until it gets > approved. I agree. But it's the only thing we could do at all there. > I think the idea behind 72-hour auto-approve is that if it's obvious > spam someone will quickly reject it, and if it's not spam then it's not > worth rejecting. I don't think this is very palatable either. Given thta our moderators *clearly* don't have time to process it, this is almost *guarantee* to get spam postings onto our site. It won't work. I think recruiting more moderators, or somehow convincing our current ones to actually moderate more often is the only way to go. --Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On 15 April 2013 21:18, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > That way nobody will notice that some things take 10 mins and others > extended numbers of days. To my knowledge, this is the only list that suffers such huge differences in moderation times. (Do we measure that?) I think something needs to happen to avoid that. Other suggestions welcome. --Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Simon Riggs wrote: > On 15 April 2013 21:18, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > That way nobody will notice that some things take 10 mins and others > > extended numbers of days. > > To my knowledge, this is the only list that suffers such huge > differences in moderation times. (Do we measure that?) Eh, list? Do you mean mailing list? I thought the problem here is about posting to the news section of the postgresql.org website. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On 15 April 2013 21:32, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 15 April 2013 21:18, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> >> > That way nobody will notice that some things take 10 mins and others >> > extended numbers of days. >> >> To my knowledge, this is the only list that suffers such huge >> differences in moderation times. (Do we measure that?) > > Eh, list? Do you mean mailing list? I thought the problem here is > about posting to the news section of the postgresql.org website. Then clearly the problem happens in two places. For me, delay is OK. What is difficult is not being able to predict whether it will be 10 mins or 5 days. If it was always 5 days, that would work perfectly. Clearly it can't always be 10 mins. --Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On Apr 15, 2013, at 4:19 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:52:54PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 2ndQuadrant has experienced significant delays in at least 3 cases >>>>>> also. There is definitely a problem somewhere there. >>>>> >>>>> The delay is called "volunteer moderators who have day jobs". >>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps we should make all posts wait the same length of time, to >>>>>> allow reasonable time to decide whether posts are suitable? 72 hours >>>>>> seems like a reasonable time for this. >>>>> >>>>> Who is going to do this strictly time-limited approving? >>>> >>>> So it auto-approves after 72 hours? I found this proposal vague. >>> >>> If anything automatic were to happen after 72 hours, the reasonable >>> thing would be a rejection. >> >> ... but that's not more helpful than not doing anything, because then >> the submitter needs to submit again. This creates a busy loop on which >> submitter needs to watch status of his submitted news until it gets >> approved. > > I agree. But it's the only thing we could do at all there. > > >> I think the idea behind 72-hour auto-approve is that if it's obvious >> spam someone will quickly reject it, and if it's not spam then it's not >> worth rejecting. I don't think this is very palatable either. > > Given thta our moderators *clearly* don't have time to process it, > this is almost *guarantee* to get spam postings onto our site. It > won't work. > > I think recruiting more moderators, or somehow convincing our current > ones to actually moderate more often is the only way to go. If helping to alleviate some of the delay issues would be to have more moderators, I would be happy to volunteer my time. Perhaps another initiative (though this is a tech suggestion) is to send a daily digest of news stories awaiting approvalto the moderators so that way there is a constant reminder to review news items. Jonathan
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Jonathan S. Katz <jonathan.katz@excoventures.com> wrote: > On Apr 15, 2013, at 4:19 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> Magnus Hagander wrote: >>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:52:54PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2ndQuadrant has experienced significant delays in at least 3 cases >>>>>>> also. There is definitely a problem somewhere there. >>>>>> >>>>>> The delay is called "volunteer moderators who have day jobs". >>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps we should make all posts wait the same length of time, to >>>>>>> allow reasonable time to decide whether posts are suitable? 72 hours >>>>>>> seems like a reasonable time for this. >>>>>> >>>>>> Who is going to do this strictly time-limited approving? >>>>> >>>>> So it auto-approves after 72 hours? I found this proposal vague. >>>> >>>> If anything automatic were to happen after 72 hours, the reasonable >>>> thing would be a rejection. >>> >>> ... but that's not more helpful than not doing anything, because then >>> the submitter needs to submit again. This creates a busy loop on which >>> submitter needs to watch status of his submitted news until it gets >>> approved. >> >> I agree. But it's the only thing we could do at all there. >> >> >>> I think the idea behind 72-hour auto-approve is that if it's obvious >>> spam someone will quickly reject it, and if it's not spam then it's not >>> worth rejecting. I don't think this is very palatable either. >> >> Given thta our moderators *clearly* don't have time to process it, >> this is almost *guarantee* to get spam postings onto our site. It >> won't work. >> >> I think recruiting more moderators, or somehow convincing our current >> ones to actually moderate more often is the only way to go. > > If helping to alleviate some of the delay issues would be to have more moderators, I would be happy to volunteer my time. We can certainly do with more moderators. Unless there are any objections, I think adding Jonathan would be a good idea? > Perhaps another initiative (though this is a tech suggestion) is to send a daily digest of news stories awaiting approvalto the moderators so that way there is a constant reminder to review news items. This is something we already do, since many years back. --Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Apr 16, 2013, at 3:10 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Jonathan S. Katz > <jonathan.katz@excoventures.com> wrote: >> On Apr 15, 2013, at 4:19 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Alvaro Herrera >>> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>>> Magnus Hagander wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:52:54PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2ndQuadrant has experienced significant delays in at least 3 cases >>>>>>>> also. There is definitely a problem somewhere there. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The delay is called "volunteer moderators who have day jobs". >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Perhaps we should make all posts wait the same length of time, to >>>>>>>> allow reasonable time to decide whether posts are suitable? 72 hours >>>>>>>> seems like a reasonable time for this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Who is going to do this strictly time-limited approving? >>>>>> >>>>>> So it auto-approves after 72 hours? I found this proposal vague. >>>>> >>>>> If anything automatic were to happen after 72 hours, the reasonable >>>>> thing would be a rejection. >>>> >>>> ... but that's not more helpful than not doing anything, because then >>>> the submitter needs to submit again. This creates a busy loop on which >>>> submitter needs to watch status of his submitted news until it gets >>>> approved. >>> >>> I agree. But it's the only thing we could do at all there. >>> >>> >>>> I think the idea behind 72-hour auto-approve is that if it's obvious >>>> spam someone will quickly reject it, and if it's not spam then it's not >>>> worth rejecting. I don't think this is very palatable either. >>> >>> Given thta our moderators *clearly* don't have time to process it, >>> this is almost *guarantee* to get spam postings onto our site. It >>> won't work. >>> >>> I think recruiting more moderators, or somehow convincing our current >>> ones to actually moderate more often is the only way to go. >> >> If helping to alleviate some of the delay issues would be to have more moderators, I would be happy to volunteer my time. > > We can certainly do with more moderators. Unless there are any > objections, I think adding Jonathan would be a good idea? > >> Perhaps another initiative (though this is a tech suggestion) is to send a daily digest of news stories awaiting approvalto the moderators so that way there is a constant reminder to review news items. > > This is something we already do, since many years back. Well, I think with that in place + a diligent moderation effort, that should prevent backlogs. Jonathan
On 04/15/2013 10:57 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 15 April 2013 21:32, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Simon Riggs wrote: >>> On 15 April 2013 21:18, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> >>>> That way nobody will notice that some things take 10 mins and others >>>> extended numbers of days. >>> >>> To my knowledge, this is the only list that suffers such huge >>> differences in moderation times. (Do we measure that?) >> >> Eh, list? Do you mean mailing list? I thought the problem here is >> about posting to the news section of the postgresql.org website. > > Then clearly the problem happens in two places. still not getting that - the original complaint was about the news section on the main website. What exactly is the "second" place? > > For me, delay is OK. What is difficult is not being able to predict > whether it will be 10 mins or 5 days. If it was always 5 days, that > would work perfectly. Clearly it can't always be 10 mins. well to be honest for a lot of our volunteers it is pretty hard to predict when they can find time for this as well, sometimes they have right at the moment when the submitter had time sometimes they dont... Stefan
On 04/16/2013 09:10 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Jonathan S. Katz > <jonathan.katz@excoventures.com> wrote: >> On Apr 15, 2013, at 4:19 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Alvaro Herrera >>> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>>> Magnus Hagander wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:52:54PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2ndQuadrant has experienced significant delays in at least 3 cases >>>>>>>> also. There is definitely a problem somewhere there. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The delay is called "volunteer moderators who have day jobs". >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Perhaps we should make all posts wait the same length of time, to >>>>>>>> allow reasonable time to decide whether posts are suitable? 72 hours >>>>>>>> seems like a reasonable time for this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Who is going to do this strictly time-limited approving? >>>>>> >>>>>> So it auto-approves after 72 hours? I found this proposal vague. >>>>> >>>>> If anything automatic were to happen after 72 hours, the reasonable >>>>> thing would be a rejection. >>>> >>>> ... but that's not more helpful than not doing anything, because then >>>> the submitter needs to submit again. This creates a busy loop on which >>>> submitter needs to watch status of his submitted news until it gets >>>> approved. >>> >>> I agree. But it's the only thing we could do at all there. >>> >>> >>>> I think the idea behind 72-hour auto-approve is that if it's obvious >>>> spam someone will quickly reject it, and if it's not spam then it's not >>>> worth rejecting. I don't think this is very palatable either. >>> >>> Given thta our moderators *clearly* don't have time to process it, >>> this is almost *guarantee* to get spam postings onto our site. It >>> won't work. >>> >>> I think recruiting more moderators, or somehow convincing our current >>> ones to actually moderate more often is the only way to go. >> >> If helping to alleviate some of the delay issues would be to have more moderators, I would be happy to volunteer my time. > > We can certainly do with more moderators. Unless there are any > objections, I think adding Jonathan would be a good idea? +1 > > > >> Perhaps another initiative (though this is a tech suggestion) is to send a daily digest of news stories awaiting approvalto the moderators so that way there is a constant reminder to review news items. > > This is something we already do, since many years back. yeah but the problem still is the same - most people do stuff in batches (ie on a quick train ride or in a break) so the same time they read the nagging mail the can just deal with the the real news item... Stefan