On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Joshua Drake escribió:
>> Well it depends on what the purpose of the new category is.
>> PostgreSQLFR for example, where would that go? It isn't technically a
>> user group but is also a non profit. ITPUG is a little easier as it is
>> a user group and a non profit.
>
> The purpose of the new category is to be able to categorize the lists
> better. If you are suggesting it to be named "Non profit" I think
> that's a nonstarter, because all the other lists are not-for-profit too.
>
> What I want is the categories to keep some relationships with the
> descriptions we're going to give the lists. So for PUGs we would use a
> geographical region name (so the okpug list would be described as
> "Oklahoma", etc). For "regional lists" we would use a language name (so
> pgsql-de-allgemein should be described as "German" or maybe "Deutsch").
Maybe 'associations'?
> If you're proposing to move pgus-general and pgeu-general under "User
> Groups", that's fine with me too.
That's fine with me. I imagine that JD/Michael/Bruce will weigh in
with their opinions.
-selena
--
Selena Deckelmann
PDXPUG - http://pugs.postgresql.org/pdx
Me - http://www.chesnok.com/daily
