Re: RFD: comp.databases.postgresql.general

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 19:26:42 GMT, Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)bigpanda(dot)com>
wrote:

>"Robert G" <robertg07(at)excite(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>Mike Cox wrote:
>>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>> unmoderated group comp.databases.postgresql.general
>>>
>>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of
>>> a worldwide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup
>>comp.databases.postgresql.general.
>>> This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
>>> Procedural details are below.
>>
>>Hello Mike. A number of us from the mailing list have been discussing
>>this on the back channel (e-mail). At least ten people that I am aware
>>of are not in favor of this idea. Your efforts are appreciated, to a
>>point, but I do prefer if you just left things well enough alone. You
>>took this initiative without notifying the mailing list proper. I saw
>>that you posted to the Newsgroup side, but your posts did not reach the
>>e-list. It is one-sided, and many of us prefer to keep it that way. A
>
>I personally haven't seen too much discussion on this subject on the mailing
>list proper, either (perhaps because the weekend traffic tends to be low) so
>I think it's too early to be saying things like "many of us" speaking for the
>mailing list.
>
>Besides which, AFAICT the mailing list gateway is not one-sided given that
>I seem to be able to post to my usenet server giving my subscribed email
>address and have it show up on the mailing list.

The groups aren't listed as moderated. Anyone who wants to post is
able to. Those not on the mailing list don't go through. That's the
problem.

>As far as I know, Marc
>does moderator checking of messages that aren't from subscribed
>addresses which is why we get some portion of the back-dated
>messages. It's possible that there might be issues with falsified
>addresses or the potentially increased volume of messages, but I
>haven't seen anything concrete either direction on that from the person
>it would directly affect.

Fixing the problem or removing it would be best. Again, you're only
looking at it from the mailing list point of view. Frankly, that's
rude.

>>After discussing the situation with my colleagues, we went ahead and
>>created an alt* group for postgresql. This new group will probably show
>
>Why is this any better to have done without any public discussion on the
>mailing list than the RFD in the first place?

It wasn't. It was yet anoter dumb thing to do.

>At least the RFD would move
>the list to being properly officially connect to usenet rather than making
>a new group that will likely not attract a large percentage of the people
>that answer the -general questions.

--
gburnore(at)databasix dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 ÝÛ³
Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com
===========================================================================