Re: Are these groups "unauthorized"?

On Sat, 29 Jun 2002, Guido Ostkamp wrote:

> 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?
>
> No.
>
> 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?

Nope, I am ... and no, we won't be changing the group names ...