Josh Berkus wrote: > Because it's hostile to community members who just want to do something > cool. Nothing destroys your enthusiasm for PostgreSQL faster than > having a senior project member tell you you're not "worthy" of a list. > The more so because the approval policy is *entirely* subjective; there > are no written rules anywhere. The current practice makes the > completely unjustified assumption that the admin group is a fair and > accurate judge of whether a new group is likely to be popular or not. > > For example, what does telling a new PUG organizer they can't have a > list say about postgresql.org's attitude towards starting new user > groups, and towards whatever part of the world they're from? For some time we were very open to creating lots of PUG lists. That didn't turn out well; see in http://www.postgresql.org/list/group/6/ the following groups: http://www.postgresql.org/list/rgnpug/ http://www.postgresql.org/list/hyd-in-pug/ http://www.postgresql.org/list/pgmke/ http://www.postgresql.org/list/sandiegopug/ http://www.postgresql.org/list/triangle-nc-pug/ Compare to groups that were active before the lists got created: http://www.postgresql.org/list/pdxpug/ http://www.postgresql.org/list/sthlm-pug/ http://www.postgresql.org/list/sfpug/ -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
pgsql-www by date:
Соглашаюсь с условиями обработки персональных данных
