| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Dan Bikle <dan(dot)bikle(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Request for SVPUG mailing list |
| Date: | 2009-07-23 23:37:09 |
| Message-ID: | 407d949e0907231637n5c4c742we1ac6f47b095ee44@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-www |
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Joshua D. Drake<jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> They are 49 miles apart and based on average traffic, what 55 minutes?
>
> Nobody on this list would think twice about a Portland and Salem PUG and
> they only 26 miles a part.
>
> Why is this an issue in the least? It makes perfect sense to have two
> separate groups.
I think it comes down to the people in those areas and what they want.
I don't understand why you would want a Salem Pug, surely anyone 20
minutes away from Portland would want to know about Portland events --
they probably live closer to those than some people in Portland! The
more you break up the groups the fewer people you reach with each
event.
If you expect too many people signing up for sfpug now or too many
events annoying people then by all means break up the lists so people
can subscribe to just the ones in their immediate area.
I've never been to any of these areas and have no idea how separate
they are or what's best. I was curious and asked.
I think the only real "issue" was that "sv" was considered a poor
choice. It's neither self-explanatory nor likely to be unique
globally. Notably people in Sweden might find it confusing.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-07-23 23:40:57 | Re: Request for SVPUG mailing list |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-07-23 23:28:14 | Re: Request for SVPUG mailing list |