On Wed, 12 May 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> > I would *love* to have the problem of so many users' groups that they
> > overlap.
> I agree with Josh. We can sort it out if and when there's actually a
> conflict, but at the moment this argument seems pretty pointless.
I have to agree with Robert on this though ... a UG, at least what I think
is the defacto standard for it, is a group that gets together ... linking
to "PostgreSQL related web sites" is not for pug.postgresql.org, or, at
least, shouldn't be ... a 'Related Sites' link off of www.postgresql.org,
I'm not so much worried about micro-managing, but there should be *some*
criteria for inclusion, and I think monthly, schedualed meetings should be
a big one ...
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
In response to
pgsql-www by date
|Next:||From: David Fetter||Date: 2004-05-12 21:15:41|
|Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL Users' Group sites|
|Previous:||From: Dave Page||Date: 2004-05-12 20:54:35|
|Subject: Re: Status update on 'new' website, testing needed|