> 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?
Aglio Database Solutions
In response to
pgsql-www by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-05-12 20:50:43|
|Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL Users' Group sites |
|Previous:||From: elein||Date: 2004-05-12 18:54:18|
|Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL Users' Group sites|