Thread: Re: RFD: comp.databases.postgresql.general

Re: RFD: comp.databases.postgresql.general

From
Mike Cox
Date:
Andy wrote:

> "Stephan Szabo" wrote:
>
> (politely snipped)
>
> Hi Stephan. As Robert tried to explain, this Mike Cox character is
> proposing that only the general list become an official Big-8
> newsgroup.

No that is not what I'm proposing.  Each group MUST go through the RFD and
CFV seperately.  I started off with the most popular group first.  After It
was done, I would have started on the rest.

>That would kill all the other lists, because all the Usenet
> posters could only post to .general, meaning that the general list
> would be overwhelmed with posts that should go to the other lists.

No.  Only the general topics would go there as the others would have gone
through RFD and CFV too.

> This
> would also significantly increase Marc's moderation workload, due to
> the increased volume of traffic and the fact that he may need to start
> redirecting posts to the appropriate lists.

Marc from his email stated that he wants to be under the big 8.  I've
emailed him back saying he can control the process from here if he has the
time.

>
> I see that usenetserver.com is your news server. Refresh your
> newsgroups list. You'll find a new newsgroup called
> alt.comp.databases.postgresql on your group list. Your server picked it
> up, just this morning, in fact. There isn't any traffic yet, but give
> it a month or so and that will change.

Marc also pointed out that one can go to news.postgresql.org and get all the
groups!  This is a better solution then diluting the mailing list!

>
> Usenetserver.com also operates a free text news server. The server
> address is free-text.usenetserver.com if anyone is interested.
> Retention is pretty darn good.


Re: RFD: comp.databases.postgresql.general

From
Woodchuck Bill
Date:
Klaas <spampit@klaas.ca> wrote in
news:spampit-A439E7.13032007112004@host170.octanews.net:

>> No that is not what I'm proposing.  Each group MUST go through the
>> RFD and CFV seperately.  I started off with the most popular group
>> first.  After It was done, I would have started on the rest.
>
> Not true.  It is actually rather common for an RFD to be proposed for
> several groups at once.  The CFV contains one voting option per group.

[comp.databases.postgresql.general added]

Russ and would probably consider waiving the vote, and creating a group for
each of the popular lists that have a tested popularity base. He already
said that he was in favor of one group per list.

One question is..would creating one comp.* group for *each* of the lists
(the way the rogue groups are currently structured) be too many PostgreSql
Big-8 groups? Or, could it be cut down to, say, four or five groups/lists?

--
Bill