On 30 Nov 2004 22:55:00 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Marc G. Fournier From: <scrappy@hub.org> wrote in
>news:coi503$28u4$1@news.hub.org:
>
>> bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com (Bill Harris) writes:
>>
>>>"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:
>>
>>>> "If there was an official newsgroup for postgresql, would you switch
>>>> to using Usenet from using the mailing lists?"
>>
>>>> As a side note, for those that do vote 'yes', please note that there
>>>> is an official pgsql.* hierarchy gated from the mailing lists, that
>>>> is available at news.postgresql.org, if you do wish to use a news
>>>> reader vs a mail reader ...
>>
>>>FWIW, I voted yes, but my vote depended upon it being a
>>>comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy, done according to USENET
>>>guidelines. I sense that would be a lot more important for PostgreSQL
>>>in the long term and a lot more sustainable in general than a pgsql.*
>>>hierarchy. It's been my experience that processes done outside the
>>>norm tend to have extra problems along the way that cost more than the
>>>immediate gratification is worth, even if it does seem more painful at
>>>the time.
>>
>> Just as an FYI ... the latest RFD is for *one*
>> comp.databases.postgresql group to be created, that is not-gated ...
>> this means that those using it would not have the benefit(s) that
>> those using the pgsql.* hierarchy do, namely access to the wealth of
>> knowledge/experience of those on the mailing lists ...
>>
>> I had posed the 'who would use USENET' question on -hackers previous
>> to the poll, and the general opinion was "not in this life time" by
>> ppl like PeterE, TomL, JoshuaD, etc ... the thread can be seen:
>>
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-11/msg01110.php
>
>Trying to sway the vote?
There has been no CFV. During an RFD, he's completely entitled to try
to persuade others people to vote yes or no when the time comes.
Bill, is it possible for you to drop the combative tone? It's not
that helpful to constantly raise the temperature of the discussion.
BW
