| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dan Bikle <dan(dot)bikle(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Request for SVPUG mailing list |
| Date: | 2009-07-23 23:28:14 |
| Message-ID: | 1248391694.1394.21.camel@jd-laptop.pragmaticzealot.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-www |
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 16:04 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 7/21/09 4:08 PM, Dan Bikle wrote:
> > My opinion is that sfpug is good enough for the entire bay area. We
> > dont need sjcpug or svpug.
>
> Ok, we'll just use the SFPUG list for now.
Wait, this is silly. The bay is huge. The idea that SF and SJ is the
same is ridiculous. The "city" of San Francisco has 800k people. The
"city" of San Jose has 900k people.
They are 49 miles apart and based on average traffic, what 55 minutes?
Nobody on this list would think twice about a Portland and Salem PUG and
they only 26 miles a part.
Why is this an issue in the least? It makes perfect sense to have two
separate groups.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
>
> --
> Josh Berkus
> PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
> www.pgexperts.com
>
--
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake(at)jabber(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Consulting, Development, Support, Training
503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2009-07-23 23:37:09 | Re: Request for SVPUG mailing list |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2009-07-23 23:27:34 | Re: Request for SVPUG mailing list |