Re: I spoke with Marc from the postgresql mailing list.

Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in news:2v8it1F2idoh9U1(at)uni-
berlin.de:

> Uhh. My head is spinning with the complexity of this. Marc is fine with
> being in the big eight official *if* the groups stay the same and it
> doesn't affect the mailing list. This will just have to be a bug in the
> system if you are correct in that the problem is unsolveable without it
> becoming a moderated newsgroup.
>

That 'bug' might bring some unwanted NO votes your way. I have never voted
against a proposal, but there is a first time for everything.

My suggestions:

-Cut it down to about 3 to 5 groups maximum. A 20-group reorganization of
the comp.databases.* hierarchy is ridiculous. I would be inclined to vote
against it on principle. If you and Marc agree that 20 groups are *really*
necessary, then fine..create the POSTGRESQL hierarchy and notify ISC.

-Propose your second RFD with any added groups as soon as possible.
Remember, your 21-day minimum discussion period will reset as soon as you
add any other groups to the proposal, so figure out which groups are the
most important and propose them ASAP. If the process drags on for too long,
people will start to get annoyed with the process and lose interest. I
speak from experience. I was one of the proponents for a multi group
proposal that started out as a single group proposal.

-Try to get Marc in on the news.groups discussion. Even if he won't become
the primary proponent, he should *at least* weigh in on the proposal. Maybe
you could remain the primary proponent, and Marc would come aboard as a
second? You can have as many proponents as you like. We had six on our
proposal.

--
Bill