Thread: lists topic change
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
After recent discussion on pgsql-eu it is obvious the description is
not valid. I only did it for -eu-general because I assume the other
communities would want to also make their own definition of what their
lists are for.
If this is approved, we also need to update archive.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHQ0nfATb/zqfZUUQRAh6iAJsHPXV1LT+CTB6Vlx4EzxcqB7dBagCgh4rp
M4rjDAckPVnvI/Df22esBMI=
=ZCU4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Attachment
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hello, > > After recent discussion on pgsql-eu it is obvious the description is > not valid. I only did it for -eu-general because I assume the other > communities would want to also make their own definition of what their > lists are for. This is not valid for pgsql-es-ayuda. We discuss anything, technical questions are the most common. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/5ZYLFMCVHXC "XML!" Exclaimed C++. "What are you doing here? You're not a programming language." "Tell that to the people who use me," said XML.
On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 12:55 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > After recent discussion on pgsql-eu it is obvious the description is > not valid. I only did it for -eu-general because I assume the other > communities would want to also make their own definition of what their > lists are for. Josh, the description is perfectly valid already. You were asked not to post to an EU list about a non-EU topic by two people, with nobody supporting your position. If I insisted on posting in English to the Spanish list, I would imagine a similar reaction, though out of respect I would not push to see if that was the case. Each list has a sensibly defined audience and we shouldn't be too strict about that. It should be clear you don't do that and I would expect any regional list to be the same way. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:38:48 +0000
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 12:55 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> > After recent discussion on pgsql-eu it is obvious the description is
> > not valid. I only did it for -eu-general because I assume the other
> > communities would want to also make their own definition of what
> > their lists are for.
>
> Josh, the description is perfectly valid already.
Obviously I disagree. I was confused by what very little non
descriptive description it has. I was trying to make it clearer for
people.
>
> You were asked not to post to an EU list about a non-EU topic by two
> people, with nobody supporting your position.
>
What in gods name are you talking about? I wasn't pushing a "position"
something that in your blind stubbornness you have yet to figure out. I
was trying to understand the scope of the list which *is not documented
anywhere*
> If I insisted on posting in English to the Spanish list, I would
> imagine a similar reaction, though out of respect I would not push to
> see if that was the case.
Somehow you have made absolutely zero sense in this sentence. I didn't
post English to a Spanish list. I posted about a community conference
to a community list.
I now realize that the community list in question (eu-general) exists
to talk about specific European issues. I did not know that before as
it is *NOT DOCUMENTED ANYWHERE*. I thought, it was just like
pgsql-general except that it was centered around the European
geographical area.
It has since been pointed out to me that I was incorrect in my
assumption which is fine but I felt that it should be documented so
others don't make the same mistake.
I have zero idea why you have gotten all upset about this.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHQ1ZnATb/zqfZUUQRAtjoAJ9IiUFL3fI2rpmrZnE3fVRlkdM8kwCfT4Tn
zT9XFe//sE/HXTG7Noc5zZ8=
=inn1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 01:49:27PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > You were asked not to post to an EU list about a non-EU topic by two > > people, with nobody supporting your position. > > > > What in gods name are you talking about? I wasn't pushing a "position" > something that in your blind stubbornness you have yet to figure out. I > was trying to understand the scope of the list which *is not documented > anywhere* I'd really like to suggest that we avoid re-hashing the argument from there here. Josh claims not to have found the old description clear, and I am not sure I can see evidence that his view is unreasonable: if you weren't already on the list, you might well not have known what it was all about. Therefore, he has proposed a clearer description. If you don't like his clearer description, I urge you to provide a patch to that text. A -- Andrew Sullivan Old sigs will return after re-constitution of blue smoke
On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 16:57 -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 01:49:27PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > You were asked not to post to an EU list about a non-EU topic by two > > > people, with nobody supporting your position. > > > > > > > What in gods name are you talking about? I wasn't pushing a "position" > > something that in your blind stubbornness you have yet to figure out. I > > was trying to understand the scope of the list which *is not documented > > anywhere* > > I'd really like to suggest that we avoid re-hashing the argument from there > here. Agreed. > Josh claims not to have found the old description clear, and I am not sure I > can see evidence that his view is unreasonable: if you weren't already on > the list, you might well not have known what it was all about. Therefore, > he has proposed a clearer description. If you don't like his clearer > description, I urge you to provide a patch to that text. IMHO no change is required. If a change of definition is desired, then perhaps the EU list is the right place to discuss it? My view may not be that of the majority. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:41:00PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > If a change of definition is desired, then perhaps the EU list is the > right place to discuss it? My view may not be that of the majority. I don't think anyone is suggesting a change of definition. It is rather the description of the definition that is at issue. Perhaps someone subscribed could ask on that list how the list describes itself, and someone could summarise that in a patch to the description? (I am not subscribed; and, being as I'm in Canada, don't intend to do.) A -- Andrew Sullivan Old sigs will return after re-constitution of blue smoke
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 10:22:03 -0500
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:41:00PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > If a change of definition is desired, then perhaps the EU list is
> > the right place to discuss it? My view may not be that of the
> > majority.
>
> I don't think anyone is suggesting a change of definition.
I am certainly not asking that the eu group change the way it is doing
things.
> It is
> rather the description of the definition that is at issue. Perhaps
Exactly. I was confused and it led to an uncomfortable situation for
me. Instead of whining about it, I submitted a patch that I thought
would make it less likely for others to possibly make the same mistake.
> someone subscribed could ask on that list how the list describes
> itself, and someone could summarise that in a patch to the
> description? (I am not subscribed; and, being as I'm in Canada,
> don't intend to do.)
I will ask on their list. I had originally tried to unsubscribed but it
failed so... :)
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHTaTbATb/zqfZUUQRAk1wAJ42FT0PP9w1HcsutbGhf6pz0lBoIgCeO/Rz
bcMN20jVk5VjN1ar3fHCbgM=
=YQaB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----