On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 16:34, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Marc,
>
> > Valid question ... but, IMHO, if we are going to define (and I'm not
> > saying that we need to) a UG, the one thing that should be defined is
> > "region of coverage" ... having one UG say that its "for France" is, IMHO,
> > way way too broad. Never having been there myself, but even if based
> > centrally in Paris (semi-central to the country, no?), I can imagine it
> > the country is larger then a 1hr driving radius from there, no?
>
> I think this is way too micro-managed. Who has time for this stuff? Let the
> users' groups declare themselves however they want.
>
> I would *love* to have the problem of so many users' groups that they overlap.
> May I point out that we currently have 3, and two have yet to have a meeting?
>
Hmm... I thought the criteria was simple... it was a site for user
groups... the french community site isn't a user group, therefore it
doesnt belong in the list for users groups... but whatever, if you guys
feel like adding it go for it, and while you're at it you could probably
add all the other community sites listed on the main page as well.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
