Re: 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)

"Vern" <vtster(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in news:dztyopvctgd(at)gmail(dot)com:

> Marc G. Fournier wrote in Msg <coono0$p91$1(at)news(dot)hub(dot)org>:
>
>> it can't *hurt* to have the group ...
>
> I respectfully disagree with you, Marc. :)
>
> The PGSQL* hierarchy is now well distributed, and there is no need
> for a comp.* group. If anything, the ungated comp.* group will
> confuse newbies into thinking that that is the best forum for
> PostGreSQL advice ... instead of the PGSQL.* hierarchy. None of
> the developers and power users of these lists will be answering
> questions in the comp.* group, if created, so it would be better
> to not create the group at all.

I still haven't decided which way to vote. I'm lingering in between NO
and ABSTAIN. I was originally in favor of a single, non-gated
Postgresql newsgroup in the comp* hierarchy. I'm no longer sure if it
would be a good thing or not.

The proponent certainly left a bad taste in my mouth after his little
crossposting stunt - but I will still vote on the *proposal*, and not
the *proponent*.

--

Bill