Thread: I'm about to release the next postgresql RFD. Comments wanted.
Obviously, there cannot be 21 postgresql groups in the comp.* hierarchy. Many of the 21 are not used that often, and would not be of much popularity to those on usenet. I did a check on news.postgresql.org to see which newsgroups are the most popular and also the ones which cover the relevant postgresql topics. Most of the postgresql topics and traffic are represented in these four newsgroups: comp.databases.postgresql.admin comp.databases.postgresql.general comp.databases.postgresql.hackers comp.databases.postgresql.sql These are the four newsgroups that will be in the next version of the RFD. The newsgroups will be unmoderated, although the posters will be moderated at the gateway side, with those who are subscribed will see their posts make it to usenet and the mailing list. A good way to think of this is that the subscription is a fast way to get through moderation. You have the option of not getting any emails. For those on the news.groups who are not familiar with postgresql, join news.postgresql.org and see the groups list. You will see that making these four groups proper members of the big 8 would solve most of the usenet problems since the other groups do not have nearly the same amount of traffic.
As a side note ... if/when the CFV is called and those 4 are approved/rejected, that will not change what is available on news.postgresql.org, it will only improve the propogation of those 4 specific groups so that more servers around the world carry them ... On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Mike Cox wrote: > Obviously, there cannot be 21 postgresql groups in the comp.* hierarchy. > Many of the 21 are not used that often, and would not be of much popularity > to those on usenet. > > I did a check on news.postgresql.org to see which newsgroups are the most > popular and also the ones which cover the relevant postgresql topics. Most > of the postgresql topics and traffic are represented in these four > newsgroups: > > comp.databases.postgresql.admin > comp.databases.postgresql.general > comp.databases.postgresql.hackers > comp.databases.postgresql.sql > > These are the four newsgroups that will be in the next version of the RFD. > The newsgroups will be unmoderated, although the posters will be moderated > at the gateway side, with those who are subscribed will see their posts > make it to usenet and the mailing list. > > A good way to think of this is that the subscription is a fast way to get > through moderation. You have the option of not getting any emails. > > For those on the news.groups who are not familiar with postgresql, join > news.postgresql.org and see the groups list. You will see that making > these four groups proper members of the big 8 would solve most of the > usenet problems since the other groups do not have nearly the same amount > of traffic. > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings > ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Woodchuck Bill wrote:
> scrappy@postgresql.org ("Marc G. Fournier") wrote in
> news:20041109200846.K31970@ganymede.hub.org:
>
>> As a side note ... if/when the CFV is called and those 4 are
>> approved/rejected, that will not change what is available on
>> news.postgresql.org, it will only improve the propogation of those 4
>> specific groups so that more servers around the world carry them ...
>
> [reply from list owner crossposted to news.groups]
Exactly. The groups that are relevant to most (determined by # of posts)
will get wider exposure ensuring that more people will take up postgresql
or have better access to help.
The ones not on the list to be made into the big 8 will always be accessible
from the news.postgresql.org server.
Also, please, if I've missed an important group you think SHOULD be in the
big 8, please let me know in this thread.
Brian Mailman wrote: > pvaurio@solaris.polarhome.com wrote: > >> I am affiliated with a network of over 60 PostgreSql users/developers, >> and I will e-mail each one of those people a ballot... > > You should not do that. > > Those ballots will be invalidated since only the official ballots that > are posted or obtained directly from the votetaker are going to be > counted. > > B/ Agreed. The person should email all the people in his network to visit news.groups to find out how to obtain an official ballot legally.
On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 16:37 -0800, Mike Cox wrote: > The ones not on the list to be made into the big 8 will always be accessible > from the news.postgresql.org server. > > Also, please, if I've missed an important group you think SHOULD be in the > big 8, please let me know in this thread. pgsql-performance gets a lot of posts and is probably relevant to nearly all users. -- Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver GPG: 1024D/A54310EA 92C8 39E7 280E 3631 3F0E 1EC0 5664 7A2F A543 10EA ======================================== "But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." I Corinthians 15:57
pvaurio@solaris.polarhome.com wrote: > The new proposal should have all of the lists. I am amazed that an > unknown interloper is trying to dictate which lists should be voted on. > I am affiliated with a network of over 60 PostgreSql users/developers, > and I will e-mail each one of those people a ballot. If your next > proposal does not contain every single one of the lists, you can expect > essentially all of those 60 people to vote no. I will campaign > passionately against your proposal if you leave out even one of the > lists. Do the right thing if you are sincerely trying to help the list > subscribers. > > This is my last post to news.groups about this. ???? -- Kenneth Downs Use first initial plus last name at last name plus literal "fam.net" to email me
pvaurio@solaris.polarhome.com wrote: > I am affiliated with a network of over 60 PostgreSql users/developers, > and I will e-mail each one of those people a ballot... You should not do that. Those ballots will be invalidated since only the official ballots that are posted or obtained directly from the votetaker are going to be counted. B/
Re: I'm about to release the next postgresql RFD. Comments wanted.
From
jtbellj3p@presby.edu (Jon Bell)
Date:
In article <spampit-3A2F1E.20451409112004@host170.octanews.net>, Klaas <spampit@klaas.ca> wrote: >In article <2vcp1nF2k0ftbU1@uni-berlin.de>, > Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> comp.databases.postgresql.general > >How about just comp.databases.postgresql or (shudder) >comp.databases.postgresql.misc? The whole point of this proposal is that c.d.p.general *already* exists in an unofficial sense on some servers, and that it should be made "official." Creating a new group with a different name will simply confuse matters on those servers that already carry c.d.p.general. -- Jon Bell <jtbellm4h@presby.edu> Presbyterian College Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
pvaurio@solaris.polarhome.com wrote: > This is my last post to news.groups about this. Good. With any luck, Marc will block you from the mailing lists for spamming those lists.
Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote in news:2vcp1nF2k0ftbU1@uni- berlin.de: > Obviously, there cannot be 21 postgresql groups in the comp.* hierarchy. I agree > I did a check on news.postgresql.org to see which newsgroups are the most > popular and also the ones which cover the relevant postgresql topics. > Most of the postgresql topics and traffic are represented in these four > newsgroups: > > comp.databases.postgresql.admin > comp.databases.postgresql.general > comp.databases.postgresql.hackers > comp.databases.postgresql.sql > What about comp.databases.postgresql.novice I think that group could be of general interest and it has a fair amount of traffic. -- Rolf Østvik
jtbellj3p@presby.edu (Jon Bell) wrote: > In article <spampit-3A2F1E.20451409112004@host170.octanews.net>, > Klaas <spampit@klaas.ca> wrote: > >In article <2vcp1nF2k0ftbU1@uni-berlin.de>, > > Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> comp.databases.postgresql.general > > > >How about just comp.databases.postgresql or (shudder) > >comp.databases.postgresql.misc? > > The whole point of this proposal is that c.d.p.general *already* exists in > an unofficial sense on some servers, and that it should be made > "official." While that is true, I think part of the point is also to create a postgresql big8 newsgroup. > Creating a new group with a different name will simply > confuse matters on those servers that already carry c.d.p.general. I don't think that is an insurmountable problem if it were actually desirable that the name be changed. Most of the participants on on the list, and thus would be unaffected. The rest use servers that have low or automatic standards for group creation, so it wouldn't be too difficult to point people to the new group on those servers. Since people like the current name, though, it is clearly not worth the potential confusion <g>. -Mike
scrappy@postgresql.org ("Marc G. Fournier") wrote in
news:20041109200846.K31970@ganymede.hub.org:
> As a side note ... if/when the CFV is called and those 4 are
> approved/rejected, that will not change what is available on
> news.postgresql.org, it will only improve the propogation of those 4
> specific groups so that more servers around the world carry them ...
[reply from list owner crossposted to news.groups]
In news.groups, Klaas <spampit@klaas.ca> writes: > Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote: >> comp.databases.postgresql.general > How about just comp.databases.postgresql or (shudder) > comp.databases.postgresql.misc? In this particular situation, I think .general may actually be a better name than either of those (not to mention matching the name of the mailing list, as I recall). I know there's only one other .general group in the Big Eight, but there are oodles of prior examples in other hierarchies. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
BTW, in Outlook Express if you are posting to the news.postgresql.org server it will not send a message to news.groups. So this message will not get there unless someone puts it there. If 4 are official and 16 are unofficial, why would that bother you? You can still access all of them the same way you do today. 4 of them would be accessible by more people and if they posted on the wrong group they can easily be let know which group is appropriate. For example, I posted a bug on the PGAdmin list, and they told me that it was a plpython bug and I should post it to the .bugs list. As for Mike being an " unknown interloper", since when did an open source forum become proprietary? He is probably a regular reader who is not a regular poster. He belongs to the postgresql community. Some people contribute by programming, other people contribute by documentation and he chose to contribute by helping to propogate the newsgroups. I think that is a worthy task and he should be thanked for doing this. Everyone always talks about how much work the core team has to do and I think that any task that someone else can contribute is a good thing. What if he recommended a new feature for the database would you say that he is an interloper and has no right to help determine the feature set? If you disagree with the proposal then discuss it in a calm fashion without name calling. If you think it should be better then help fix it. Don't stand on the sidelines yelling "hey batter batter..." <pvaurio@solaris.polarhome.com> wrote in message news:1100046126.551730.36700@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > The new proposal should have all of the lists. I am amazed that an > unknown interloper is trying to dictate which lists should be voted on. > I am affiliated with a network of over 60 PostgreSql users/developers, > and I will e-mail each one of those people a ballot. If your next > proposal does not contain every single one of the lists, you can expect > essentially all of those 60 people to vote no. I will campaign > passionately against your proposal if you leave out even one of the > lists. Do the right thing if you are sincerely trying to help the list > subscribers. > > This is my last post to news.groups about this. >
In article <2vcp1nF2k0ftbU1@uni-berlin.de>, Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote: > comp.databases.postgresql.general How about just comp.databases.postgresql or (shudder) comp.databases.postgresql.misc? -Mike
Re: I'm about to release the next postgresql RFD. Comments wanted.
From
pvaurio@solaris.polarhome.com
Date:
The new proposal should have all of the lists. I am amazed that an unknown interloper is trying to dictate which lists should be voted on. I am affiliated with a network of over 60 PostgreSql users/developers, and I will e-mail each one of those people a ballot. If your next proposal does not contain every single one of the lists, you can expect essentially all of those 60 people to vote no. I will campaign passionately against your proposal if you leave out even one of the lists. Do the right thing if you are sincerely trying to help the list subscribers. This is my last post to news.groups about this.
At 11:54 AM 11/14/2004, you wrote: >The new proposal should have all of the lists. This is true. All the mailing lists that gate to USENet should either be legitimized or removed.
At 01:54 AM 11/14/2004, Sim Zacks wrote: >BTW, in Outlook Express if you are posting to the news.postgresql.org server >it will not send a message to news.groups. So this message will not get >there unless someone puts it there. > >If 4 are official and 16 are unofficial, why would that bother you? Because the groups already exist on many servers. Make them all legit and gate them all. Problem solved.
That would be the perfect solution for us, but apparantly not for the rest of the world. Since they are offering us 4 and saying we can apply for the other 16 in 6 months, I would take that and not try to take an all or nothing attitude. More of a work with the newsgroup people then against them attitude. Personally, I will be very happy if we get approved. I switched to the newsgroup from the maillist as soon as I found out about it, and my news server doesn't carry this list so I have to access it through news.postgresql.org ""Gary L. Burnore"" <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote in message news:6.1.1.1.2.20041114090455.03a5d380@popd.databasix.com... > At 01:54 AM 11/14/2004, Sim Zacks wrote: > >BTW, in Outlook Express if you are posting to the news.postgresql.org server > >it will not send a message to news.groups. So this message will not get > >there unless someone puts it there. > > > >If 4 are official and 16 are unofficial, why would that bother you? > > Because the groups already exist on many servers. Make them all legit and > gate them all. Problem solved. > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html >