hey look, a dead horse, let's go beat it...
On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 17:15, David Fetter wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 06:03:45PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 May 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > > Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> > > > I would *love* to have the problem of so many users' groups that
> > > > they overlap.
> > >
> > > I agree with Josh. We can sort it out if and when there's
> > > actually a conflict, but at the moment this argument seems pretty
> > > pointless.
> >
> > I have to agree with Robert on this though ... a UG, at least what I
> > think is the defacto standard for it, is a group that gets together
> > ... linking to "PostgreSQL related web sites" is not for
> > pug.postgresql.org, or, at least, shouldn't be
>
> Why not?
>
> > ... a 'Related Sites' link off of www.postgresql.org, yes ...
> >
> > I'm not so much worried about micro-managing, but there should be
> > *some* criteria for inclusion,
>
> Great! How about willingness to be included? At this stage, that's
> plenty.
>
> > and I think monthly, schedualed meetings should be a big one ...
>
> Please pardon me while I add in a little reality check to this grand
> plan. SF PostgreSQL Users' Group, far and away the largest to date,
> has had one once every 2-3 months. According to this "criterion,"
> there are no pugs at all right now, let alone three fledgling ones.
>
they at least have the intention of meeting in person, which I think is
what Mark was getting at.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
