Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Time to get infrastructure team-based

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Time to get infrastructure team-based
Date: 2008-03-22 15:34:38
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-www
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>>>  > I can, but it can be changed so that I cannot in seconds. We *need*
>>>  > agreement otherwise this could get extremely messy. Has anyone from
>>>  > -core other than me actually asked yet?
>>>  No, but it seems like a waste of time to even try.
>>>  One idea is to set up the duplicate infrastructure with a domain in
>>>  place, and if the domain change gets blocked, we just switch to the new
>>>  domain name.
>> I don't even want to think about the ramifications of doing that.
> Well, then we will forever be hostage to the will of the domain name
> holder.

Yes, but that would be equally true of the holder of the new domain. It 
would, however, make sense to have the domain reassigned to - it's currently owned by pgsql,inc. But you still need a 
contacts on the domain that are individuals, who will always have at 
least a theoretical ability to "hold hostage".

But this is really a different question from the other one. I'm not 
saying both shouldn't be fixed, I'm just saying it's different things.


In response to


pgsql-www by date

Next:From: Robert TreatDate: 2008-03-22 15:43:35
Subject: Re: Please remove change_the_name email list
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2008-03-22 15:30:16
Subject: Re: Time to get infrastructure team-based

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group