RFD: comp.databases.postgresql.general

On 4 Nov 2004 17:17:20 GMT, "Andy" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

Someone posted this official proposal to create
comp.databases.postgresql.general again. He wrote his own charter. As
far as I know, he did not consult any of the postgresql groups first.
There may be an upcoming vote on this, so please stay informed and read
news.newgroups.announce for updates.

Ouch, I can see why you're upset. The first recommendation to any
proponent is that he be well-known to the affected groups and that he
consult with them before proceeding. He needs the support of other
users to get those 120 votes+ to pass. I'd suggest he find additional
proponents who are better known to the group.

However all is not lost. Remember the proponent of an unmoderated
group has no more say in how the group is run than any other user. If
this needs to be a valid comp.* group, it really doesn't matter who
proposes it. Get the discussion going now. If you don't like the
charter, suggest changes. Then, if you still don't like it, vote
against it; but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

BarB

Andy wrote:

Someone posted this official proposal to create
comp.databases.postgresql.general again. He wrote his own charter. As
far as I know, he did not consult any of the postgresql groups first.
There may be an upcoming vote on this, so please stay informed and read
news.newgroups.announce for updates.

Also see message <2uu44nF2eodc0U1@uni-berlin.de> for an example of the
proponent's temperament.

I can see how this would ruffle some serious feathers.

But if I can risk getting a smack, I'd like to say that I had a bit of
trouble figuring out how to get on to this group. The "respectable" news
server I use does not carry it, but it shows up on Google. What's that
about?

Then I've noticed some notes here and there that you are supposed to send
some emails to a list-server if you post, to avoid messing up the mailing
list? Is that right? Why would I be worried about a listserv?

Finally figured out this is some kind of hybrid newsgroup/mail-list. Is
that right? Real question is, why I am trying to figure this out? Why
isn't it on the news server with all of the other technical groups?

To make a long story short, the request might not have been made in the most
diplomatic way, but it would, if adopted, solve some real anomalies that
confuse newcomers to this group and its relatives.

--
Kenneth Downs
Use first initial plus last name at last name plus literal "fam.net" to
email me

On 4 Nov 2004 17:17:20 GMT, "Andy" <me@privacy.net> wrote to
news.groups:

Someone posted this official proposal to create
comp.databases.postgresql.general again.

As the name says, this is a Request for Discussion, not an "official
proposal" (whatever that may be). Discussion about this is not only
welcome, it is encouraged.

He wrote his own charter.

Somebody had to write one. If there's a problem with it, now is the
time for discussion. (I can see some potential problems with it,
actually - there's no mention of what sort of posts would be on-topic or
off-topic for the proposed newsgroup, for one thing.)

As
far as I know, he did not consult any of the postgresql groups first.

It is difficult to consult a group that isn't carried on all servers.
That's one reason why this thread is being posted to news.groups - it's
a group that is carried on almost every Usenet server.

There may be an upcoming vote on this, so please stay informed and read
news.newgroups.announce for updates.

And please take part in the discussion if you have a concern that hasn't
been raised by someone else.

Also see message <2uu44nF2eodc0U1@uni-berlin.de> for an example of the
proponent's temperament.

It looks to me like the proponent is upset about not being able to
access the existing sort-of-newsgroup, and would like the group promoted
to full newsgroup status so that it will have a larger propogation.

<snip>

--
Rob Kelk
Personal address (ROT-13): eboxryx -ng- wxfei -qbg- pbz
Any opinions here are mine, not ONAG's.
ott.* newsgroup charters: <http://onag.pinetree.org&gt;

[posted and mailed to the list]

On 6 Nov 2004 01:44:34 -0800, "Robert G" <robertg07@excite.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@databasix dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | �۳�ݳ޳�ݳ��ۺݳ޳�ݳݳ޳�ݳ��۳
| �۳�ݳ޳�ݳ��ۺݳ޳�ݳݳ޳�ݳ��۳
DataBasix | �۳�ݳ޳�ݳ��ۺݳ޳�ݳݳ޳�ݳ��۳
| �۳ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 �۳
Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com
===========================================================================

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Gary L. Burnore wrote:

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.

Not sure where anyone got the idea that the gateway is uni-directional,
but it has been bi-directional since the day of its inception *years* ago
...

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?

Which won't happen ...

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.

The list will continue to function as it always has ... it sends to
Usenet, and receives from it ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

Andy wrote:

"Stephan Szabo" wrote:

(politely snipped)

Hi Stephan. As Robert tried to explain, this Mike Cox character is
proposing that only the general list become an official Big-8
newsgroup.

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.

That would kill all the other lists, because all the Usenet
posters could only post to .general, meaning that the general list
would be overwhelmed with posts that should go to the other lists.

No. Only the general topics would go there as the others would have gone
through RFD and CFV too.

This
would also significantly increase Marc's moderation workload, due to
the increased volume of traffic and the fact that he may need to start
redirecting posts to the appropriate lists.

Marc from his email stated that he wants to be under the big 8. I've
emailed him back saying he can control the process from here if he has the
time.

I see that usenetserver.com is your news server. Refresh your
newsgroups list. You'll find a new newsgroup called
alt.comp.databases.postgresql on your group list. Your server picked it
up, just this morning, in fact. There isn't any traffic yet, but give
it a month or so and that will change.

Marc also pointed out that one can go to news.postgresql.org and get all the
groups! This is a better solution then diluting the mailing list!

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 19:26:42 GMT, Stephan Szabo <sszabo@bigpanda.com>
wrote:

"Robert G" <robertg07@excite.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@databasix dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | �۳�ݳ޳�ݳ��ۺݳ޳�ݳݳ޳�ݳ��۳
| �۳�ݳ޳�ݳ��ۺݳ޳�ݳݳ޳�ݳ��۳
DataBasix | �۳�ݳ޳�ݳ��ۺݳ޳�ݳݳ޳�ݳ��۳
| �۳ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 �۳
Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com
===========================================================================

On 7 Nov 2004 20:01:51 GMT, "Andy" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

"Stephan Szabo" wrote:

(politely snipped)

Hi Stephan. As Robert tried to explain, this Mike Cox character

Hi Stephen, this "Andy" character isn't using a real name or address.

is
proposing that only the general list become an official Big-8
newsgroup.

That's based on his not knowing the rules. Obviously this needs to
address the entire mess.

That would kill all the other lists, because all the Usenet
posters could only post to .general, meaning that the general list
would be overwhelmed with posts that should go to the other lists. This
would also significantly increase Marc's moderation workload, due to
the increased volume of traffic and the fact that he may need to start
redirecting posts to the appropriate lists.

I see that usenetserver.com is your news server. Refresh your
newsgroups list. You'll find a new newsgroup called
alt.comp.databases.postgresql on your group list. Your server picked it
up, just this morning, in fact. There isn't any traffic yet, but give
it a month or so and that will change.

Doubtful. Not everyone will pick it up. Alt.net and spam sites will.
That's not what you want.

Usenetserver.com also operates a free text news server. The server
address is free-text.usenetserver.com if anyone is intereste
Retention is pretty darn good.

Define pretty darn good.

--
gburnore@databasix dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | �۳�ݳ޳�ݳ��ۺݳ޳�ݳݳ޳�ݳ��۳
| �۳�ݳ޳�ݳ��ۺݳ޳�ݳݳ޳�ݳ��۳
DataBasix | �۳�ݳ޳�ݳ��ۺݳ޳�ݳݳ޳�ݳ��۳
| �۳ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 �۳
Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com
===========================================================================

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Gary L. Burnore wrote:

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 long as the posting gets to the gateway, it gets put into the
moderator (me) queue for approval ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

Klaas <spampit@klaas.ca> wrote in
news:spampit-A439E7.13032007112004@host170.octanews.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

At 04:29 PM 11/7/2004, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Gary L. Burnore wrote:

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 long as the posting gets to the gateway, it gets put into the moderator
(me) queue for approval ...

Which is why the groups should be moderated. That'd fix a major part of
the problem. As it is now, the post will be on the usenet group but not
necessarily in the email group.

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 21:16:05 GMT, Stephan Szabo <sszabo@bigpanda.com>
wrote:

Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 19:26:42 GMT, Stephan Szabo <sszabo@bigpanda.com>
wrote:

"Robert G" <robertg07@excite.com> wrote:

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, they do go through after moderation currently.

As for "the problem," I can't figure out if you are speaking about the
current state or the proposal. If the former, given that the current
state is AFAIK that the groups have no status at all, I can't see how
not being listed as moderated has any effect.

User makes a comment in USENet. Post gets seen on usenet servers
around the world. Moderator chooses not to approve. Post remains in
USENet, not in email list. Later, someone replies to usenet post.
Moderator accepts. Now people on list see that they didn't get to see
the post being replied to.

If the groups are moderated, the moderator gets _ALL_ posts before
they appear in the group.

--
gburnore@databasix dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | �۳�ݳ޳�ݳ��ۺݳ޳�ݳݳ޳�ݳ��۳
| �۳�ݳ޳�ݳ��ۺݳ޳�ݳݳ޳�ݳ��۳
DataBasix | �۳�ݳ޳�ݳ��ۺݳ޳�ݳݳ޳�ݳ��۳
| �۳ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 �۳
Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com
===========================================================================

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Kenneth Downs wrote:

Then I've noticed some notes here and there that you are supposed to send
some emails to a list-server if you post, to avoid messing up the mailing
list? Is that right? Why would I be worried about a listserv?

There are no such requirements that I'm aware of, and I setup/maintain the
primary gateway ... in fact, I'm the one that goes through all of the
news->mail messages and approves them to go through to the lists ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Gary L. Burnore wrote:

At 04:29 PM 11/7/2004, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Gary L. Burnore wrote:

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 long as the posting gets to the gateway, it gets put into the moderator
(me) queue for approval ...

Which is why the groups should be moderated. That'd fix a major part of the
problem. As it is now, the post will be on the usenet group but not
necessarily in the email group.

Unless its spam, it goes through ... I don't (nor have I ever) refused a
post based on content other then spam ... even if its anti-PostgreSQL
*shrug*

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Gary L. Burnore wrote:

User makes a comment in USENet. Post gets seen on usenet servers around
the world. Moderator chooses not to approve.

Unless ist Spam, moderator always approves ... I know, cause its me ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 17:29:28 -0400 (AST), scrappy@postgresql.org ("Marc
G. Fournier") wrote:

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Gary L. Burnore wrote:

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 long as the posting gets to the gateway, it gets put into the
moderator (me) queue for approval ...

If the group was explicitly marked as moderated, then all posts would
be sent directly to you. The content of both the mailing list and
newsgroup would be identical, so that whichever a participant chose to
use would be a matter of preferred interface.

--
Jim Riley

At 10:20 PM 11/7/2004, you wrote:

Andy wrote:

Someone posted this official proposal to create
comp.databases.postgresql.general again. He wrote his own charter. As
far as I know, he did not consult any of the postgresql groups first.
There may be an upcoming vote on this, so please stay informed and read
news.newgroups.announce for updates.

Also see message <2uu44nF2eodc0U1@uni-berlin.de> for an example of the
proponent's temperament.

I can see how this would ruffle some serious feathers.

But if I can risk getting a smack, I'd like to say that I had a bit of
trouble figuring out how to get on to this group. The "respectable" news
server I use does not carry it, but it shows up on Google. What's that
about?

Google tries to carry everything so it can archive it. The more group it
carries, the more it can charge its advertisers.

DataBasix carries it even though it wasn't an officially created group
because some of our users requested it and they read it.

Then I've noticed some notes here and there that you are supposed to send
some emails to a list-server if you post, to avoid messing up the mailing
list? Is that right? Why would I be worried about a listserv?

Because it's gated. It flows both ways (although in a broken fashion.

Of course, posting through tle list serve, I see IT's broken too since the
setup has the reply going to the sending party instead of back to the list.

Finally figured out this is some kind of hybrid newsgroup/mail-list. Is
that right?

Not hybrid. Just a bit different.

Real question is, why I am trying to figure this out? Why
isn't it on the news server with all of the other technical groups?

To make a long story short, the request might not have been made in the most
diplomatic way, but it would, if adopted, solve some real anomalies that
confuse newcomers to this group and its relatives.

Exactly.

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Gary L. Burnore wrote:

DataBasix carries it even though it wasn't an officially created group
because some of our users requested it and they read it.

To improve speed, do you want to setup an inter-connect between our news
server and yours?

Then I've noticed some notes here and there that you are supposed to send
some emails to a list-server if you post, to avoid messing up the mailing
list? Is that right? Why would I be worried about a listserv?

Because it's gated. It flows both ways (although in a broken fashion.

Of course, posting through tle list serve, I see IT's broken too since the
setup has the reply going to the sending party instead of back to the list.

Actually, we tried setting the Reply-To to the list, and I don't think
that very many ppl liked that, so we removed it ... personally, I liked
the reply-to, but that's just a personal thing *shrug*

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

scrappy@postgresql.org ("Marc G. Fournier") wrote in
news:20041107235943.E93613@ganymede.hub.org:

Unless its spam, it goes through ... I don't (nor have I ever) refused a
post based on content other then spam ... even if its anti-PostgreSQL
*shrug*

The problem with the system is that the spam *all* gets posted to Usenet,
but not the mailing lists. The mailing lists may be moderated, but the
newsgroups are not. That needs to be changed.

Marc, please stop removing news.groups from your replies.