Re: RFD: comp.databases.postgresql.general

Klaas <spampit(at)klaas(dot)ca> wrote in
news:spampit-A439E7(dot)13032007112004(at)host170(dot)octanews(dot)net:

>> No that is not what I'm proposing. Each group MUST go through the
>> RFD and CFV seperately. I started off with the most popular group
>> first. After It was done, I would have started on the rest.
>
> Not true. It is actually rather common for an RFD to be proposed for
> several groups at once. The CFV contains one voting option per group.

[comp.databases.postgresql.general added]

Russ and would probably consider waiving the vote, and creating a group for
each of the popular lists that have a tested popularity base. He already
said that he was in favor of one group per list.

One question is..would creating one comp.* group for *each* of the lists
(the way the rogue groups are currently structured) be too many PostgreSql
Big-8 groups? Or, could it be cut down to, say, four or five groups/lists?

--
Bill