Re: RFD: comp.databases.postgresql.*
On 22 Nov 2004 10:15:01 +0000, Patrick May <pjm@spe.com> wrote:
ru.igarashi@usask.ca writes:
However, note that in the c.d.oracle hierarchy's structure the
general group is called c.d.oracle.misc, and that parallels
c.d.p.general. There's really not much reason to rename
c.d.p.general to c.d.p if mimicking existing hierarchies is the main
argument. Sure, I don't like the .misc or the .general tags, but
they are in place already, so I don't see a strong enough argument
for c.d.postgresql (with no 4th node).I'd agree if the assumption were that the other PostgreSQL
mailing lists were to be eventually de-bogused, but that is the
assumption I'm challenging (without, currently, a strong bias either
way -- I'm looking to be convinced). I would be interested in reading
a PostgreSQL newsgroup, but I'm not inclined to subscribe to the
mailing lists (banal reasons available on request). I suspect that I
am not alone in this demographic. Given that the existing bogus
groups indicate an interest, why not start with just
comp.databases.postgresql and see what happens? I suspect that much
of the general discussion will move from the mailing lists, leaving
that venue for the active developers.Given the relative number of users, it would surprise me to
find that more people are discussing PostreSQL than Oracle. What
kind of message volumes do the lists see?I'm seeing that the .general group gets about 20 messages a day,
which is pretty good. The other proposed groups get something like
5 per day.Thanks for the numbers. This volume suggests to me that a single
newsgroup will be sufficient. I read several groups with higher
volume and no need to split.
Well it would be if all of the lists were then sent to one group, but
since the list "owner" appears to not want to change anything, it'll
still be screwed.
--
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
===========================================================================
Import Notes
Reference msg id not found: 1100725455.10663@isc.orgReference msg id not found: m24qjmxkz3.fsf@gulch.intamission.comReference msg id not found: cnlh3a$u67$3@tribune.usask.caReference msg id not found: m26540nzqm.fsf@gulch.intamission.comReference msg id not found: cnr6lm$def$1@tribune.usask.caReference msg id not found: m24qji9om2.fsf@gulch.intamission.com
On 22 Nov 2004 19:44:10 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com>
wrote:
kmorgan@spamcop.net (Kathy Morgan) wrote in
news:1gnn5wf.1has9tync90mrN%kmorgan@spamcop.net:I think the reality of Usenet is that servers which currently carry the
bogus group c.d.p.general are unlikely to remove it even if a valid
group c.d.p. were created and messages from the mailing list
c.d.p.general re-directed to c.d.p. People using those servers would
see both the c.d.p. and c.d.p.general traffic, Google would continue to
carry the bogus group, and discussion would remain splintered.Since there are already servers including Google that carry the group
with the .general node, if a new valid group is created it should carry
the .general name.Google has just blocked posting access to *all* of the PostgreSQL groups.
If you look at the Google Groups interface for each group, it says "This
group is no longer archived". They probably started receiving complaints
that the groups were not Big-8 sanctioned and decided to pull them. Way to
go, Google.
It looks like the best solution to the problem of a list owner who
refuses to correct the problem.
I'm sure they would reinstate any of the groups that pass a
CFV.
No doubt.
--
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
===========================================================================
Import Notes
Reference msg id not found: 1100725455.10663@isc.orgReference msg id not found: m24qjmxkz3.fsf@gulch.intamission.comReference msg id not found: cnlh3a$u67$3@tribune.usask.caReference msg id not found: m26540nzqm.fsf@gulch.intamission.comReference msg id not found: cnr6lm$def$1@tribune.usask.caReference msg id not found: m24qji9om2.fsf@gulch.intamission.comReference msg id not found: 1gnn5wf.1has9tync90mrN%kmorgan@spamcop.netReference msg id not found: Xns95A995D3232FDbswr607h4@130.133.1.4 | Resolved by subject fallback
Patrick May <pjm@spe.com> wrote in
news:m2r7mk24uv.fsf@gulch.intamission.com:
Interesting. Does this affect anyone's views on the group name
(yes, I'm looking at you, Ms. Morgan) or is the feeling that existing
users wouldn't switch to a new name, even if it were archived by
Google?
If they were to start their own hierarchy postgresql.*, they could keep all
21 of the groups, all of the groups would be available upon request to news
servers around the world, Google would pick them up again in a heartbeat,
they would not need to pass a vote, and PostgreSQL would have even more
prestige by having a dedicated net news hierarchy.
Even if they were to be moved to alt.comp.*, they would be legitimate and
available by request, no vote required, back in Google, and they could keep
all 21 of the groups. But no, our defiant list owner prefers to be stubborn
and keep things the way they are, which has already resulted in
fragmentation of his rogue hierarchy as Google has dropped them, and other
servers will probably follow now that the rogue nature of these groups is
being more publicized due to this RFD.
Something to think about, Marc.
--
Bill
Import Notes
Reference msg id not found: 1100725455.10663@isc.orgReference msg id not found: m24qjmxkz3.fsf@gulch.intamission.comReference msg id not found: cnlh3a$u67$3@tribune.usask.caReference msg id not found: m26540nzqm.fsf@gulch.intamission.comReference msg id not found: cnr6lm$def$1@tribune.usask.caReference msg id not found: m24qji9om2.fsf@gulch.intamission.comReference msg id not found: 1gnn5wf.1has9tync90mrN%kmorgan@spamcop.netReference msg id not found: Xns95A995D3232FDbswr607h4@130.133.1.4Reference msg id not found: m2r7mk24uv.fsf@gulch.intamission.com | Resolved by subject fallback