Re: 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql

jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com ("Joshua D. Drake") wrote in
news:41B0C39E(dot)9090804(at)commandprompt(dot)com:

>
>> So the current state of affairs is that we have the gated, official
>> pgsql.* newsgroups, and the comp.* stuff is not gated in either
>> direction?

Yes.

>> If that's the case, there should be a weekly/monthly reminder posting
>> on the comp.* side set up, pointing out that these are not official
>> groups and that real PostgreSQL questions are better asked somewhere
>> else, if the intention is to reach real developers and get real help.
>> I don't want to see people wasting a lot of time or getting confused
>> because they found the wrong newsgroups first.

Why would the comp.* group be the *wrong* group? Just an additional
resource. The proponent said that he would post weekly pointers about the
pgsql.* hierarchy to the comp.* group, but expecting him to post something
negative about the comp.* group is asking too much of him. This group is
not meant to be a competing resource..it is just another channel, and
another plug for the open-source community. Stop treating it like a bad
thing.

You are insulting non-developer advanced pgsql.* users that would be using
the comp.* group by inferring that only the developers are capable of
answering questions. Do the Oracle developers, or MSsql developers
participate in the respective comp.* groups for their products? Most
probably not. Are those newsgroups extremely useful resources for users of
those products? Very much so.

> That could easily be botted :)

I am not sure if the charter would allow for bot postings. Mike Cox should
decide in advance if that should be written into the charter or not.