Marc G. Fournier From: wrote:
> Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>Marc G. Fournier From: wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> Not sure what general opinion is here, so hopefully someone else will jump
> in, but to me 'private' means 'not accessible to the public' ...
Hopefully someone like Russ will tell us the correct term for domains like
microsoft.* and gnu.*. Those on the mailing lists, or in pgsql.*, visit
news.groups to read the RFD and make your opinions and voice heard! It is
important to shape it into something that will enhance and benfit users.
The charter and the RFD should go through a trial by fire to make it
excellent. Give me your criicizm, suggestions,etc. I can handle it!
RFDs are generally, by tradition, discussed in news.groups. That way those
who are interested can participate without being off-topic in the mailing
lists and pgsql.* hierarchies. I'm trying to balance being respectfull of
the mailing lists and pgsql.* groups by informing them of what is
happening, but also of not filling their lists needlessly with RFD talk.
;-)
