Joshua D. Drake escribió:
> On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 16:04 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > On 7/21/09 4:08 PM, Dan Bikle wrote:
> > > My opinion is that sfpug is good enough for the entire bay area. We
> > > dont need sjcpug or svpug.
> >
> > Ok, we'll just use the SFPUG list for now.
>
> Wait, this is silly. The bay is huge. The idea that SF and SJ is the
> same is ridiculous. The "city" of San Francisco has 800k people. The
> "city" of San Jose has 900k people.
I think the point is just about what mailing list they will use. Have
you considered what the lefthand menu in archives.pg.org would look like
if every single town in the US had its own PUG mailing list? It's quite
long already: http://archives.postgresql.org/diapug/
I think it would be more than enough if there were a single list for
each state. There would still be a lot of lists; and each of them would
only carry traffic for your own city (your own PUG) and a couple of
others you would not be interested in, at the most.
How is that a problem? Is there a sense of lost identity being fought?
Is there an identity, which is a precondition for identity being lost in
the first place?
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
