Re: Idea for a secondary list server

Josh Berkus wrote:

> Because it's hostile to community members who just want to do something
> cool. Nothing destroys your enthusiasm for PostgreSQL faster than
> having a senior project member tell you you're not "worthy" of a list.
> The more so because the approval policy is *entirely* subjective; there
> are no written rules anywhere. The current practice makes the
> completely unjustified assumption that the admin group is a fair and
> accurate judge of whether a new group is likely to be popular or not.
>
> For example, what does telling a new PUG organizer they can't have a
> list say about postgresql.org's attitude towards starting new user
> groups, and towards whatever part of the world they're from?

For some time we were very open to creating lots of PUG lists. That
didn't turn out well; see in http://www.postgresql.org/list/group/6/ the
following groups:
http://www.postgresql.org/list/rgnpug/
http://www.postgresql.org/list/hyd-in-pug/
http://www.postgresql.org/list/pgmke/
http://www.postgresql.org/list/sandiegopug/
http://www.postgresql.org/list/triangle-nc-pug/

Compare to groups that were active before the lists got created:
http://www.postgresql.org/list/pdxpug/
http://www.postgresql.org/list/sthlm-pug/
http://www.postgresql.org/list/sfpug/

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services