Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>>> > I can, but it can be changed so that I cannot in seconds. We *need*
>>> > agreement otherwise this could get extremely messy. Has anyone from
>>> > -core other than me actually asked yet?
>>> No, but it seems like a waste of time to even try.
>>> One idea is to set up the duplicate infrastructure with a domain in
>>> place, and if the domain change gets blocked, we just switch to the new
>>> domain name.
>> I don't even want to think about the ramifications of doing that.
> Well, then we will forever be hostage to the will of the domain name
Yes, but that would be equally true of the holder of the new domain. It
would, however, make sense to have the domain reassigned to
postgresql.org - it's currently owned by pgsql,inc. But you still need a
contacts on the domain that are individuals, who will always have at
least a theoretical ability to "hold hostage".
But this is really a different question from the other one. I'm not
saying both shouldn't be fixed, I'm just saying it's different things.
In response to
pgsql-www by date
|Next:||From: Robert Treat||Date: 2008-03-22 15:43:35|
|Subject: Re: Please remove change_the_name email list|
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2008-03-22 15:30:16|
|Subject: Re: Time to get infrastructure team-based|