| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, elein <elein(at)varlena(dot)com>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, "pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Re: [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL Users' Group sites |
| Date: | 2004-05-12 20:34:54 |
| Message-ID: | 200405121334.54328.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-www |
Marc,
> Valid question ... but, IMHO, if we are going to define (and I'm not
> saying that we need to) a UG, the one thing that should be defined is
> "region of coverage" ... having one UG say that its "for France" is, IMHO,
> way way too broad. Never having been there myself, but even if based
> centrally in Paris (semi-central to the country, no?), I can imagine it
> the country is larger then a 1hr driving radius from there, no?
I think this is way too micro-managed. Who has time for this stuff? Let the
users' groups declare themselves however they want.
I would *love* to have the problem of so many users' groups that they overlap.
May I point out that we currently have 3, and two have yet to have a meeting?
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-05-12 20:50:43 | Re: Fwd: Re: [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL Users' Group sites |
| Previous Message | elein | 2004-05-12 18:54:18 | Re: Fwd: Re: [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL Users' Group sites |