Re: RFD: comp.databases.postgresql.general

[posted and mailed to the list]

On 6 Nov 2004 01:44:34 -0800, "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).

Gee, what a surprise, not. Why not discuss it on the .general list
where everyone can see it?

>At least ten people that I am aware of are not in favor of this idea.

That's fine. How many are for it? Did you ask?

>Your efforts are appreciated, to a point, but I do prefer if you just left
>things well enough alone.

But that would be the wrong thing to do.

>You took this initiative without notifying the mailing list proper.

If you're discussing it on a 'back channel' then aren't you doing the
same thing?

>I saw that you posted to the Newsgroup side, but your posts did not reach the
>e-list.

That's the problem

>It is one-sided, and many of us prefer to keep it that way.

Ah, so you want to shove your group up USENet's ass and not take
anything in return.

>A post by Andy to the mailing list was the only news we were given of
>this.

Because it's busted and he tried to fix it.

>This talk of opening up the list to the Big Eight and making a 2-way
>gateway would have a devastating effect on the way the list currently
>functions.

Then get the gateway removed. One way causes grief. Someone reads a
post, replies and bad stuff happens. It's broken. Your preference
for leaving it the same will not be acceptable.

>That would probably force most of us to subscribe to the
>digest version of the list, which is not quite as good as receiving the
>individual messages posted to the list.

Which is no where NEAR as good as moving it from E-Mail to USENet if
it's that big. But it's not MY list so I don't care. I do care that
you're basically shoving stuff at comp.databases.* without regard for
the effects.

>
>Your proposal would probably receive more support if you would change
>the name of the proposed group to comp.databases.postgresql, as there
>is no list or gated newsgroup with that name.

That wouldn't fix the problem. It also wouldn't make any sense from
the USENet point of view.

>If you draft another RFD with this change, you would get my YES vote, and probably a good number
>more than if you use one of the current names. In the current form, I
>would be inclined to vote against the proposal.

So you'll be in favor of removing the mail-to-news gateway, right?

>I believe that you probably had very good intentions when you made this
>proposal. You probably did not realize the complexity of what you were
>getting into.

Likely. Do you?

>Please let the mailing list function as it currently does

No. The list as it currently funcions sends messages to USENet. That
needs to be changed.

>- a medium volume mailing list. Consider something else. If Usenet-only
>posters find your group, gatewayed to our mailing list, they will only
>have access to the general list by Usenet. That means that all
>postgresql posts will go to the general list. The posts that are
>intended for the specialized lists will also go to the general list,
>and that will make the waters even muddier. For example, if a developer
>has something specific to post about JDBC, they would post it to your
>newsgroup, and it would be gated to the general mailing list instead of
>the JDBC-specific list.

You're getting it only from one side. From the usenet side, they'd
rightly think to post to comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces.jdbc

>After discussing the situation with my colleagues, we went ahead and
>created an alt* group for postgresql.

Of course you did. What an asanine thing to do.

>This new group will probably show up on your news server within one week.

Hahahahaha.

>The group name is alt.comp.databases.postgresql.

This is what happens when people who don't understand USENet get
together and try to do something without asking about it first. Gee,
the same thing you said he did. Funny, eh?

>If this does not meet your requirement
>for an international newsgroup for general postgresql discussion, then
>by all means, continue your quest, but please do not use any of the
>group names assigned to any of our mailing lists.

Then remove the gateway. The groups can be created with the correct
names which would include a comp.databases.postgresql.general that
simply would no longer be receiving emails from your clique list.

>Thank you for your efforts to facilitate discussion of a fine RDMS, and
>thanks in advance for your cooperation.

So are you going to begin discussions on removing the gateway?
--
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
===========================================================================