I'm about to release the next postgresql RFD. Comments wanted.

[Mike Cox]

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.

[pvaurio]

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.

[Marc G. Fournier]

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: sc*****@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

[pvaurio]

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.

[Woodchuck Bill]

sc*****@postgresql.org ("Marc G. Fournier") wrote in
news:20*******************@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]

[Brian Mailman]

pv*****@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/

[Mike Cox]

Woodchuck Bill wrote:

sc*****@postgresql.org ("Marc G. Fournier") wrote in
news:20*******************@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.

[Mike Cox]

Brian Mailman wrote:

pv*****@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.

[Klaas]

In article <2v*************@uni-berlin.de>,
Mike Cox <mi**********@yahoo.com> wrote:

comp.databases.postgresql.general

How about just comp.databases.postgresql or (shudder)
comp.databases.postgresql.misc?

-Mike

[Russ Allbery]

In news.groups, Klaas <sp*****@klaas.ca> writes:

Mike Cox <mi**********@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 (rr*@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

[Jon Bell]

In article <sp***************************@host170.octanews.ne t>,
Klaas <sp*****@klaas.ca> wrote:

In article <2v*************@uni-berlin.de>,
Mike Cox <mi**********@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 <jt*******@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA

[Sim Zacks]

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..."
<pv*****@solaris.polarhome.com> wrote in message
news:11*********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegro ups.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.

[Klaas]

jt*******@presby.edu (Jon Bell) wrote:

In article <sp***************************@host170.octanews.ne t>,
Klaas <sp*****@klaas.ca> wrote:

In article <2v*************@uni-berlin.de>,
Mike Cox <mi**********@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

[Rolf Østvik]

Mike Cox <mi**********@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

[Kenneth Downs]

pv*****@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

[Arthur L. Rubin]

pv*****@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.

[Oliver Elphick]

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 ol**@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
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to ma*******@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

[Gary L. Burnore]

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.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match

[Gary L. Burnore]

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

[Sim Zacks]

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"" <gb******@databasix.com> wrote in message
news:6.*******************************@popd.databa six.com...

At 01:54 AM 11/14/2004, Sim Zacks wrote:

BTW, in Outlook Express if you are posting to the news.postgresql.org serverit 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