Re: 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*) - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | Mike Cox |
---|---|
Subject | Re: 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*) |
Date | |
Msg-id | 31a1e1F383r5iU1@individual.net Whole thread Raw |
List | pgsql-general |
Marc G. Fournier From: wrote: > Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> writes: > >> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) >> unmoderated group comp.databases.postgresql > >>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of >>the worldwide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup comp.databases.postgresql. >>This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. >>Procedural details are below. > >>CHANGES: > >>The changes from the previous RFD are: > >>1. The removal of the following groups from the RFD: > >>unmoderated group comp.databases.postgresql.admin >>unmoderated group comp.databases.postgresql.hackers >>unmoderated group comp.databases.postgresql.novice >>unmoderated group comp.databases.postgresql.sql > >>2. The proposed comp.databases.postgresql.general group was renamed to >>comp.databases.postgresql. > >>3. The charter has been changed to allow discussion of all topics that >>were in the separate groups. > >>4. The comp.databases.postgresql.general group will not be gated to any >>other group or mailing list. > >>5. The rationale was changed to reflect the removal of the "bogus" >>PostgreSQL groups from the comp.databases.* hierarchy. > > Wern't these these the same changes as were between the 1st and 2nd RFDs? No. The 2nd RFD added 4 groups and the official charters from the postgresql website. > >>To provide a Big Eight newsgroup for users of the PostgreSQL Relational >>Database Management System. Currently there is a mailing list gated to a >>private hierarchy. > > The pgsql.* hierarchy is a not a private one, it is a public one carried > by several of the large usenet servers. Doesn't "private" denote a hierarchy in its own domain such as microsoft.*, and gnu.*? If I used an incorrect term, I'll be happy to change it. > >>*Announcements of new versions of PostgreSQL, PostgreSQL related >>software, and documentation. >>*PostgreSQL performance, benchmarking and related topics. >>*Discussions pertaining to the administration, compilation and >>installation of PostgreSQL. >>*Assisting beginners in using the PostgreSQL Relational Database >>Management >>system. Help answer basic questions. >>*SQL related matters including normalization, and theory as it applies to >>PostgreSQL. >>*General discussions of PostgreSQL. >>*PostgreSQL Promotional ideas, etc. >>*Programming using PostgreSQL. Stored Proceedures, Server-Side functions >>written in C, PL/pgSQL,PL/Perl, and other languages. >>*Discussions of PostgreSQL interfaces, including JDBC and ODBC. >>*Discussions of the Contrib packages. > > Is there a reason why this is broken down into specific areas of > discussion, > or is this group *restricted* to just these? If not, are you sure you > haven't missed anything? Wouldn't a more general: > > This group is meant to discuss all aspects of the PostgreSQL RDBMS PostgreSQL development, and bug reports must be discussed in the mailing lists because the devopers are there. The PostgreSQL comp. group does have a well defined, and broad discussion scope. That being said, maybe you missed the line in the charter that reads: "*General discussions of PostgreSQL." Many informed individuals from news.groups and private emails from PostgreSQL users told me to include a detailed charter. I followed that advice, using the broad input for what they wanted to see in a PostgreSQL charter. > > be in line with the purpose of the group? > >>This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: > >>news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, comp.databases, >>comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc > > Any reason not to include pgsql.general? Or is that an audience you don't > want included in the discussion? Of course not. They should participate because of the wonderful benefits the big 8 comp group will bring to the community. The group will enable usenet PostgreSQL users to participate effectively in PostgreSQL discussions. It will bring greater exposure to the mailing lists as we *will* post a pointer weekly about the existance of the mailing lists and the highly specialized pgsql.* groups. That way users will not wonder why there isn't a postgresql big 8 group. MySQL has an RFD in news.groups, so it will be represented in usenet's big 8. PostgreSQL needs that presence too. There is pent up demand for it. The pgsql.* hierarchy/mailing list is correctly focused on making the mailing list experience wonderful. In the same spirt, the comp.databases.postgresql group will make the usenet experience excellent. Those who prefer Usenet are under-served because the mailing-list/pgsql.* gateway does not provide a seemless usenet experience. Many feel that getting emails in reply to a usenet post does not capture what usenet should be like. The issues of having to wait for their posts to make it to the pgsql.* lists and hierarchy are also a concern. Those interested should visit news.groups and follow the passionate discussions on these issues. There is also the issue of having to ask their news providers to carry the pgsql.* hierarchy. With a big 8 postgreql group, users will have instant gratification of every server carrying it. When they see the pgsql pointer, they will also become informed of the existance of the mailing-lists and the pgsql.* hierarchy and can ask their providers to carry them if that's what they want. This is really about enhancing the popularity of PostgreSQL. Voting YES is like watering a plant, it helps the whole project and community of PostgreSQL grow. Each leg, whether it is the mailing list, the comp.databases.postgresql group or the pgsql.* hierarchy will bring PostgreSQL to a wider and bigger audience. With that I hope everyone sees the great benefits of welcoming a new comp.databases.postgresql group into the community. Just imagine going to comp.databases and seeing this: comp.databases.mysql comp.databases.postgresql comp.databases.oracle.misc This would be wonderful, and a great step in the advocacy and expansion of the community of PostgreSQL users.
pgsql-general by date: