"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>
[I had written]
> >
> > Did you warn the proponent of comp.databases.postgresql.* that you were
> > going to do this? Did you read any of the arguments for and against a
> > completely separate hierarchy that were posted to the RFD thread in
> > news.groups?
>
> Interesting point. What did come of all the arguments?
The current RFD thread is still active. (In news.groups, anyway.)
This is how the big-8 newsgroup creation process usually works. New
RFDs are posted, and discussion ensues, until it's decided it's time
for a vote or the proponent(s) drop the idea. This can take some
time.
> These news server
> changes seem to be fairly arbitrary and one lined.
I'm going to *guess* the idea came from this comment:
| Subject: Re: RFD: comp.databases.postgresql.*
| Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.databases.postgresql.general
| Date: 23 Nov 2004 11:50:42 GMT
| Organization: Beaver Dam
| From: Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com>
|
[snip]
|
| If they were to start their own hierarchy postgresql.*, they could keep all
| 21 of the groups, all of the groups would be available upon request to news
| servers around the world, Google would pick them up again in a heartbeat,
| they would not need to pass a vote, and PostgreSQL would have even more
| prestige by having a dedicated net news hierarchy.
|
[snip]
|
| Something to think about, Marc.
The key words there being "think about," IMO. For example, the part
about "would have even more prestige." Really? My news server at work
doesn't carry such newsgroups at all. Which is pretty much the point
somebody else made to a similar suggestion. (I.e.: Propagation might
be poor.)
> Perhaps this should
> be taken up as a whole?
[snip]
I'm not clear on what exactly "as a whole" means, but I would suggest
that arbitrary and peremptory behaviour, perceived or real, is not
likely to endear the pgsql community to Usenet newsmasters.
Jim
