Re: whatcom-pgsql

On Aug 4, 2014, at 10:57 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> On 08/04/2014 12:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>>> If the Whatcom community takes form, we
>>> can certainly create a list later.
>>
>> Catch-22:
>>
>> A: Can't get a PUG started because no mailing list.
>> B: Can't get a mailing list because no PUG started.
>>
>> This seems like something it's critical for us to resolve. Again, it's
>> sounding like we need some kind of additional resources for "peripheral"
>> mailing lists.
>
> Well, I am not averse to creating a list if it has value. However, I
> don't know that having the list is a prerequisite for a PUG getting off
> the ground. Is it? Why do we create lists for PUGs that never see any
> activity? Is there any way to stop these lists from being born in the
> first place?

As long as there is a place for people to get updates, be it on the PG infrastructure, Meetup, a G+ page, etc. that is really all that is needed. It's also why we keep this list (http://www.postgresql.org/community/user-groups/) which provides URLs to websites / mailing lists (on PG infra and off), so the organizers can use the tools that they prefer. I personally find Meetup very useful for organizing meetups and helping new people to become active in our user group. There are fees associated with it, but for aspiring PUG organizers, if they join one of the advocacy nonprofits (PG.US, PG.EU, etc.) they may be able to receive funding to use it.

In terms of PUG activity (which leads into the dead mailing-list point), perhaps we need to create a formal set of guidelines in terms of what constitutes an active vs inactive PUG. While some user groups can hold monthly meetings based on location, availability of speakers, etc., it's easier for others to hold quarterly ones. Perhaps we're at the point as a community where we do need to make sure that the various PUGs are holding events on a regular basis. If a PUG is truly inactive and there is no one able to take over the organizational duties, we can remove the mailing list from PG infra so it is one less thing to maintain.

Of course, talking about "What constitutes an active PUG" covers a greater scope than what the original discussion was, but perhaps it will help solve the problem. I think in this particular case, if JD thinks the best way to build out a community in his area, we should give it a try, and simultaneously come up with a policies for "An active PUG" + "removing dead mailing lists."

Jonathan