Postresql RFD version 2.0 Help Wanted.

[Mike Cox]

Since we have the discussion going, someone mentioned that the group name
should be comp.databases. postgresql. I think this is a good name and I'd
like to see what everyone thinks of it.

There is also the issue of the charter. I would like to get some feed back
on what the best charter could be for the revision of the RFD so it is a
strong as possible.

So the things I'm seeing that people are having the most problems with the
current RFD are:

1. The name. They want a better name, and also one that doesn't clash with
the "bogus" (usenet terminology, no disrespect intended)
comp.databases. postgresql.gene ral mailing-list newsgroup gateway name
space.

Someone suggested "comp.databases .postgresql". I think that is a good one,
and if others agree (please respond in this thread), then that will be one
of the changes in the next version of the RFD.

2. The charter. A lot of people expressed feedback that my default charter
wasnt very good. I'll agree with them as it was provided as a starting
point. I would like the community to craft the charter and the one they
decide upon, I will include in the next RFD.

If there is anything else that would make the next postgresql RFD stronger,
and better, please discuss it in this thread.

I also think that a postgresql group should definately be in the big eight
under the comp.* hierarchy. The (newly created) alt group should not be a
primary place for discussion because it is not guarenteed that all "proper"
usenet servers will carry it, as they would if it were in the big 8. There
is also a certain air of respectablity to being in the big 8. It means
that it has gone through a process and has passed scrutiny. Then people
would find postgresql next to oracle in the comp.databases. * hierarchy! ;-)

[Woodchuck Bill]

Mike Cox <mi**********@y ahoo.com> wrote in news:2v4mbfF2i3 beoU1@uni-
berlin.de:

Since we have the discussion going, someone mentioned that the group name
should be comp.databases. postgresql. I think this is a good name and I'd
like to see what everyone thinks of it.

Much better, especially if you are only proposing a single newsgroup in the
hierarchy. Use of the word "general" is unnecessary, and cumbersome.

--
Bill

[Mike Cox]

Woodchuck Bill wrote:

Mike Cox <mi**********@y ahoo.com> wrote in news:2v4mbfF2i3 beoU1@uni-
berlin.de:

Since we have the discussion going, someone mentioned that the group name
should be comp.databases. postgresql. I think this is a good name and I'd
like to see what everyone thinks of it.

Much better, especially if you are only proposing a single newsgroup in
the hierarchy. Use of the word "general" is unnecessary, and cumbersome.

My original intention was to make the comp.database.p ostgresql.* groups
proper members of the "big 8" managed hierarchy. They are considered
"bogus" currently by many proper News providers because they haven't gone
through RFD and CFV. I wanted to start slowly and with the most benefitial
group, comp.databases. postgresql.gene ral, and then do the others in
accordance to traffic interest as measured by google groups.

There is resistance in the mailing lists however, even though the groups are
already on usenet and are in the managed "big 8" name space without RFD
and CFV.

That is why I am now proposing to change it to comp.databases. postresql so
it doesn't clash with the mailing list name space of
comp.databases. postgresql.gene ral. If others on the
mailing-list/usenet-gateway do want to be proper members of the big 8, then
they should speak up.

There is also the issue of moving the postgresql mailing list/news gateway
to a private namespace like postgresql.*. This would be similar to gnu.*
and microsoft.*. This would solve the problem of the postgresql groups
residing in a managed hierarchy without going through RFD and CFV, which
was the problem I was originally trying to solve.

[Devin L. Ganger]

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 11:11:09 -0800, Mike Cox <mi**********@y ahoo.com> wrote:

Since we have the discussion going, someone mentioned that the group name
should be comp.databases. postgresql. I think this is a good name and I'd
like to see what everyone thinks of it.

I think you're pursuing this backwards, Mike. You should contact the current
owner of the present mail-to-news gateway and build some sort of consensus
with *him* on what the problem and proposed solution is, before trying to
create a solution that will only muddy the waters up even farther.

This person made a choice to use Big 8 namespace on his server (and other
servers). His server, his rules. Maybe he can be brought to the table to
discuss why that isn't the easy fix he thought it was and figure out what
the best way to go is from here.

--
Devin L. Ganger <de***@thecabal .org>
"Aikido is based around the central precept of letting an attack take
its natural course. You, of course, don't want to impede that natural
flow by being in its way." -- overheard on the PyraMOO

[Mike Cox]

Polarhound wrote:

Mike Cox wrote:

There is resistance in the mailing lists however, even though the groups
are
already on usenet and are in the managed "big 8" name space without RFD
and CFV.

This now brings up the question of traffic numbers. Historically, if
people are against a NG, or are already happy with their current method
of communication, they are unlikely to switch.

That is why I am now proposing to change it to comp.databases. postresql
so it doesn't clash with the mailing list name space of
comp.databases. postgresql.gene ral. If others on the
mailing-list/usenet-gateway do want to be proper members of the big 8,
then they should speak up.

Wasn't the original point of the whole proposal to legitimize the list
owner's stupidity in creating the comp.* groups in the first place?

Yes it was. It was to make them legitimate so I could post through my
usenet provider. I will probably let the proposal die. If I were to
create a seperate group, I've realized that then people would be split up
into the usenet and mailing list camps. That is not my original intention.
My goal was to make the group a proper member of the comp.* hierarchy so
that more people could participate through usenet.

I cannot handle the volume of email that a mailing list would place on my
inbox. I will not be able to use the mailing list, only for dire
emergencies where I will have to constantly monitor my inbox so it doesn't
overflow.

I cannot understand why they wouldn't want to be part of the comp.*
hierarchy properly though. They could still be a mail the list for those
that wanted it, just like they are doing now! The only change is that it
would allow people to post through usenet instead of just being able to get
them on non-standard usenet servers who don't follow the big 8 config file.

We can make the group moderated too if that's their concern. If Marc or
anyone wants to be a moderator, I see why not. They could probably have a
script that could allow those on the mailing list to get through faster
too.

[Mike Cox]

Devin L. Ganger wrote:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 11:11:09 -0800, Mike Cox <mi**********@y ahoo.com>
wrote:

Since we have the discussion going, someone mentioned that the group
name
should be comp.databases. postgresql. I think this is a good name and
I'd like to see what everyone thinks of it.

I think you're pursuing this backwards, Mike. You should contact the
current owner of the present mail-to-news gateway and build some sort of
consensus with *him* on what the problem and proposed solution is, before
trying to create a solution that will only muddy the waters up even
farther.

This person made a choice to use Big 8 namespace on his server (and other
servers). His server, his rules. Maybe he can be brought to the table to
discuss why that isn't the easy fix he thought it was and figure out what
the best way to go is from here.

That is way beyond my technical scope I'm afraid. I wouldn't know what the
correct solution would be. Russ Allbery <rr*@stanford.e du>, seems very
knowledgable about this, and I would be pleased if you could mail the
postgresql list person about this discussion and Russ's email address. If
the postgresql list manager and Russ decide it is a bad idea to be part of
the big 8, all the list maintainer has to do is post a message to
news.groups and I will not go any farther.

Basically if the mailing list-news-gateway doesn't want to be in the big 8
then I'm not going to continue in that process.

[Woodchuck Bill]

Mike Cox <mi**********@y ahoo.com> wrote in
news:2v******** *****@uni-berlin.de:

I cannot handle the volume of email that a mailing list would place
on my
inbox.

Ever heard of a digest version?

--
Bill

[Mike Cox]

Woodchuck Bill wrote:

Mike Cox <mi**********@y ahoo.com> wrote in
news:2v******** *****@uni-berlin.de:

I cannot handle the volume of email that a mailing list would place
on my
inbox.

Ever heard of a digest version?

I don't care. Its too much of a hassle to dig through without being able to
google groups search it.

I'm pretty much done with this anyway. It is a waste of time putting in
anymore effort since no one seems to want it.

Here are the steps I went through.

1. I tried subscribing to comp.databases. postgresql.gene ral through my
usenet provider thinking it was a regular big 8 group. When it wasn't
found, I sent a request to my news provider to include it.

2. My news provider emailed me back saying it was "bogus" and they would not
carry it.

3. How could it be "bogus" I thought. It is a legitimate project with
years of history. It has won numerous awards. I did a search on google
and found out that it was indeed "bogus". Simple enough I thought.
Obviously the postgresql folks are way too busy developing the features of
postgresql to have time to go through a rigerous process of RFD and CFV
which takes about a month to complete.

Given that they named their group under the big 8 namespace, it seemed
obvious to me that they wanted to be there. I'm not a programmer so I
thought I could contribute by going through the process for them. I tried
posting to the group but my mail bounced. I searched but I couldn't find
out how to make it post to the mailing list.

Well, an RFD is a Request for Discussion so what better way to get the ball
rolling on what is basically a formality because they are *already* on
usenet, just in a "bogus" way. I would go through the rigerous process and
get the group approved, with the knowlegde that the only thing that would
change is that they would be a legitimate member of the comp domain.

4. It seems that it was a much bigger issue than just completing a
formality, such as reminding someone that their domain name had expired.
The big 8 membership seemingly went over badly in private email discussions
between the list members from what I've heard from one usenet poster. If
it is an ego thing, I've already said that I would let someone take over if
that was the issue.

I've heard a postive response initially from members of the news.groups
group, saying it was a good idea to put them in since they are established,
have readership in usenet, and are well liked. Many usenet providers also
voiced their support. They have a choice of bowing to user demand and have
a bogus group in their comp hierarchy or like my provider, refusing to
carry it. Not pretty in either case.

[Devin L. Ganger]

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:03:57 -0800, Mike Cox <mi**********@y ahoo.com>
wrote:

Devin L. Ganger wrote:

I think you're pursuing this backwards, Mike. You should contact the
current owner of the present mail-to-news gateway and build some sort of
consensus with *him* on what the problem and proposed solution is, before
trying to create a solution that will only muddy the waters up even
farther.

This person made a choice to use Big 8 namespace on his server (and other
servers). His server, his rules. Maybe he can be brought to the table to
discuss why that isn't the easy fix he thought it was and figure out what
the best way to go is from here.

That is way beyond my technical scope I'm afraid. I wouldn't know what the
correct solution would be.
No one ever said you have to do it *alone*. There are folks here who
would be more than willing to *help* you do it, but they're not going
to do it for you.
Russ Allbery <rr*@stanford.e du>, seems very knowledgable about this,
and I would be pleased if you could mail the postgresql list person
about this discussion and Russ's email address.
Russ is a busy person; don't be so quick to volunteer his time for him
unless you're damn sure you have his permission. Even if he were not a
busy person, most people consider it to be rude to be volunteered
without their consent.
Basically if the mailing list-news-gateway doesn't want to be in the big 8
then I'm not going to continue in that process.

Which is fair, but since you're the person who *did* kick this off, you
should probably be the person to email the owner and ask him if he would
be willing to have a conversation with you about the best way to proceed
from here.

You should also probably take a step back and contact the group mentor
list <gr***********@ lists.eyrie.org > and get some advice and participation
from the folks there, no matter which way you intend to pursue this.
Again, there are people who will help, but you need to be willing to run
point on this even though it's likely not going to be the slam-dunk you
thought it would be initially.

--
Devin L. Ganger <de***@thecabal .org>
"Aikido is based around the central precept of letting an attack take
its natural course. You, of course, don't want to impede that natural
flow by being in its way." -- overheard on the PyraMOO

[Woodchuck Bill]

"Devin L. Ganger" <de***@thecabal .org> wrote in
news:sl******** **********@bofh .thecabal.inter nal:

Russ Allbery <rr*@stanford.e du>, seems very knowledgable about this,
and I would be pleased if you could mail the postgresql list person
about this discussion and Russ's email address.

Russ is a busy person; don't be so quick to volunteer his time for him
unless you're damn sure you have his permission. Even if he were not a
busy person, most people consider it to be rude to be volunteered
without their consent.

Yeah, that was seriously rude.

--
Bill