Thread: Are these groups "unauthorized"?
Hello PostgreSQL developers and Admins of news.postgresql.org, recently I located messages of this PostgreSQL groups on groups.google.com. However, after asking the local newsserver admin of my company to host those groups as well, I was told that those groups here are *unauthorized* and clearly violating current Usenet rules for the namespace of the "Big 8" hierarchies, that is "comp.*" and others, thus the hosting of the groups had to be refused. Apparently, no RfD (Request for discussion) and voting has ever been made to officially introduce those groups to the Usenet. May I kindly ask, why this procedure has not been followed? Or, if you did not intend to do that, why have the groups not been given a name outside of the forbidden namespace of the "Big 8"? I am sure, a lot of people would be happy, if those groups were officially introduced and hosted on many international newservers. Regards, Guido
Guido Ostkamp <Guido.Ostkamp@gmx.de> writes:
> I am sure, a lot of people would be happy, if those groups were
> officially introduced and hosted on many international newservers.
Yup. Are you volunteering to be the proponent who shepherds a vote
through the official process?
regards, tom lane
On Friday 28 June 2002 10:46 am, Tom Lane wrote: > Guido Ostkamp <Guido.Ostkamp@gmx.de> writes: > > I am sure, a lot of people would be happy, if those groups were > > officially introduced and hosted on many international newservers. > Yup. Are you volunteering to be the proponent who shepherds a vote > through the official process? Maybe more like 'martyr' who shepherds a vote through. I remember going through a few votes years ago, and the memories are not fond ones. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Friday 28 June 2002 10:46 am, Tom Lane wrote: > > Guido Ostkamp <Guido.Ostkamp@gmx.de> writes: > > > I am sure, a lot of people would be happy, if those groups were > > > officially introduced and hosted on many international newservers. > > > Yup. Are you volunteering to be the proponent who shepherds a vote > > through the official process? > > Maybe more like 'martyr' who shepherds a vote through. I remember going > through a few votes years ago, and the memories are not fond ones. That's why I never bothered ... I've been admin'ng Usenet for enough years now to know that if you create them and propogate them to your neighbors, they will eventually get propogaated out and created ... there are a few admin out there that are anal about creating 'unauthorized' groups, but most out there just let them pass ... That said, if anyone wants to provide an open NNTP server for the c.d.postgresql.* hierarchy, please let me know and we'll add ou on ...
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Guido Ostkamp <Guido.Ostkamp@gmx.de> writes:
>> I am sure, a lot of people would be happy, if those groups were
>> officially introduced and hosted on many international newservers.
>
> Yup. Are you volunteering to be the proponent who shepherds a vote
> through the official process?
No.
If you look closely at the 'comp.databases.*' hierarchy you will find
that most of the databases listed have only one group, with the
exception of the big players like Oracle. That means, the maximum you
would be able to get is a 'comp.databases.postgresql', but not the bunch
of groups which is available here. I don't believe admins here would
agree to throw away all others.
What I recommend to do, is that the names of the groups here gets
changed by stripping of the 'comp.databases' prefix. The group names
would then make up their own main hierarchy ('postgres.*') like it
exists for other stuff or companies as well (like 'microsoft.*') etc.
That would AFAIK no longer violate any rules, and allow webmasters from
outside to host these groups. Only the people reading these groups
would need a small and easy reconfiguration of their subscribed lists
which could be announced by a posting before its done, that's all.
What do you think?
BTW: I see you belong to the core development team. Are you responsible
for running this server news.postgresql.org?
Regards,
Guido
On Sat, 29 Jun 2002, Guido Ostkamp wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Guido Ostkamp <Guido.Ostkamp@gmx.de> writes:
> >> I am sure, a lot of people would be happy, if those groups were
> >> officially introduced and hosted on many international newservers.
> >
> > Yup. Are you volunteering to be the proponent who shepherds a vote
> > through the official process?
>
> No.
>
> If you look closely at the 'comp.databases.*' hierarchy you will find
> that most of the databases listed have only one group, with the
> exception of the big players like Oracle. That means, the maximum you
> would be able to get is a 'comp.databases.postgresql', but not the bunch
> of groups which is available here. I don't believe admins here would
> agree to throw away all others.
>
> What I recommend to do, is that the names of the groups here gets
> changed by stripping of the 'comp.databases' prefix. The group names
> would then make up their own main hierarchy ('postgres.*') like it
> exists for other stuff or companies as well (like 'microsoft.*') etc.
>
> That would AFAIK no longer violate any rules, and allow webmasters from
> outside to host these groups. Only the people reading these groups
> would need a small and easy reconfiguration of their subscribed lists
> which could be announced by a posting before its done, that's all.
>
> What do you think?
>
> BTW: I see you belong to the core development team. Are you responsible
> for running this server news.postgresql.org?
Nope, I am ... and no, we won't be changing the group names ...