Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>>> > I can, but it can be changed so that I cannot in seconds. We *need*
>>> > agreement otherwise this could get extremely messy. Has anyone from
>>> > -core other than me actually asked yet?
>>>
>>> No, but it seems like a waste of time to even try.
>>>
>>> One idea is to set up the duplicate infrastructure with a domain in
>>> place, and if the domain change gets blocked, we just switch to the new
>>> domain name.
>> I don't even want to think about the ramifications of doing that.
>
> Well, then we will forever be hostage to the will of the domain name
> holder.
Yes, but that would be equally true of the holder of the new domain. It
would, however, make sense to have the domain reassigned to
postgresql.org - it's currently owned by pgsql,inc. But you still need a
contacts on the domain that are individuals, who will always have at
least a theoretical ability to "hold hostage".
But this is really a different question from the other one. I'm not
saying both shouldn't be fixed, I'm just saying it's different things.
//Magnus
