Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Guido Ostkamp <Guido(dot)Ostkamp(at)gmx(dot)de> writes:
>> I am sure, a lot of people would be happy, if those groups were
>> officially introduced and hosted on many international newservers.
> Yup. Are you volunteering to be the proponent who shepherds a vote
> through the official process?
If you look closely at the 'comp.databases.*' hierarchy you will find
that most of the databases listed have only one group, with the
exception of the big players like Oracle. That means, the maximum you
would be able to get is a 'comp.databases.postgresql', but not the bunch
of groups which is available here. I don't believe admins here would
agree to throw away all others.
What I recommend to do, is that the names of the groups here gets
changed by stripping of the 'comp.databases' prefix. The group names
would then make up their own main hierarchy ('postgres.*') like it
exists for other stuff or companies as well (like 'microsoft.*') etc.
That would AFAIK no longer violate any rules, and allow webmasters from
outside to host these groups. Only the people reading these groups
would need a small and easy reconfiguration of their subscribed lists
which could be announced by a posting before its done, that's all.
What do you think?
BTW: I see you belong to the core development team. Are you responsible
for running this server news.postgresql.org?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Matthew T. O'Connor||Date: 2002-06-29 20:50:04|
|Subject: Vacuum Daemon|
|Previous:||From: Marc G. Fournier||Date: 2002-06-29 17:49:56|
|Subject: Re: Are these groups "unauthorized"?|