Re: 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)

"Vern" <vtster@gmail.com> wrote in news:dztyopvctgd@gmail.com:

Marc G. Fournier wrote in Msg <coono0$p91$1@news.hub.org>:

it can't *hurt* to have the group ...

I respectfully disagree with you, Marc. :)

The PGSQL* hierarchy is now well distributed, and there is no need
for a comp.* group. If anything, the ungated comp.* group will
confuse newbies into thinking that that is the best forum for
PostGreSQL advice ... instead of the PGSQL.* hierarchy. None of
the developers and power users of these lists will be answering
questions in the comp.* group, if created, so it would be better
to not create the group at all.

I still haven't decided which way to vote. I'm lingering in between NO
and ABSTAIN. I was originally in favor of a single, non-gated
Postgresql newsgroup in the comp* hierarchy. I'm no longer sure if it
would be a good thing or not.

The proponent certainly left a bad taste in my mouth after his little
crossposting stunt - but I will still vote on the *proposal*, and not
the *proponent*.

--

Bill

Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote:

The proponent certainly left a bad taste in my mouth after his little ...

Too much information.

tm <tm@tmoero.invalid> wrote in
news:tm-F42753.12510918032005@newsflood.tokyo.att.ne.jp:

Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote:

The proponent certainly left a bad taste in my mouth after his
little ...

Too much information.

LOL. Get your mind out of the gutter. ;-)

--

Bill