Re: 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)
Marc G. Fournier From: wrote:
Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> writes:
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group comp.databases.postgresqlThis is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of
the worldwide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup comp.databases.postgresql.
This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Procedural details are below.CHANGES:
The changes from the previous RFD are:
1. The removal of the following groups from the RFD:
unmoderated group comp.databases.postgresql.admin
unmoderated group comp.databases.postgresql.hackers
unmoderated group comp.databases.postgresql.novice
unmoderated group comp.databases.postgresql.sql2. The proposed comp.databases.postgresql.general group was renamed to
comp.databases.postgresql.3. The charter has been changed to allow discussion of all topics that
were in the separate groups.4. The comp.databases.postgresql.general group will not be gated to any
other group or mailing list.5. The rationale was changed to reflect the removal of the "bogus"
PostgreSQL groups from the comp.databases.* hierarchy.Wern't these these the same changes as were between the 1st and 2nd RFDs?
No. The 2nd RFD added 4 groups and the official charters from the
postgresql website.
To provide a Big Eight newsgroup for users of the PostgreSQL Relational
Database Management System. Currently there is a mailing list gated to a
private hierarchy.The pgsql.* hierarchy is a not a private one, it is a public one carried
by several of the large usenet servers.
Doesn't "private" denote a hierarchy in its own domain such as microsoft.*,
and gnu.*? If I used an incorrect term, I'll be happy to change it.
*Announcements of new versions of PostgreSQL, PostgreSQL related
software, and documentation.
*PostgreSQL performance, benchmarking and related topics.
*Discussions pertaining to the administration, compilation and
installation of PostgreSQL.
*Assisting beginners in using the PostgreSQL Relational Database
Management
system. Help answer basic questions.
*SQL related matters including normalization, and theory as it applies to
PostgreSQL.
*General discussions of PostgreSQL.
*PostgreSQL Promotional ideas, etc.
*Programming using PostgreSQL. Stored Proceedures, Server-Side functions
written in C, PL/pgSQL,PL/Perl, and other languages.
*Discussions of PostgreSQL interfaces, including JDBC and ODBC.
*Discussions of the Contrib packages.Is there a reason why this is broken down into specific areas of
discussion,
or is this group *restricted* to just these? If not, are you sure you
haven't missed anything? Wouldn't a more general:This group is meant to discuss all aspects of the PostgreSQL RDBMS
PostgreSQL development, and bug reports must be discussed in the mailing
lists because the devopers are there. The PostgreSQL comp. group does have
a well defined, and broad discussion scope. That being said, maybe you
missed the line in the charter that reads:
"*General discussions of PostgreSQL."
Many informed individuals from news.groups and private emails from
PostgreSQL users told me to include a detailed charter. I followed that
advice, using the broad input for what they wanted to see in a PostgreSQL
charter.
be in line with the purpose of the group?
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, comp.databases,
comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.miscAny reason not to include pgsql.general? Or is that an audience you don't
want included in the discussion?
Of course not. They should participate because of the wonderful benefits
the big 8 comp group will bring to the community. The group will enable
usenet PostgreSQL users to participate effectively in PostgreSQL
discussions. It will bring greater exposure to the mailing lists as we
*will* post a pointer weekly about the existance of the mailing lists and
the highly specialized pgsql.* groups.
That way users will not wonder why there isn't a postgresql big 8 group.
MySQL has an RFD in news.groups, so it will be represented in usenet's big
8. PostgreSQL needs that presence too. There is pent up demand for it.
The pgsql.* hierarchy/mailing list is correctly focused on making the
mailing list experience wonderful. In the same spirt, the
comp.databases.postgresql group will make the usenet experience excellent.
Those who prefer Usenet are under-served because the mailing-list/pgsql.*
gateway does not provide a seemless usenet experience. Many feel that
getting emails in reply to a usenet post does not capture what usenet
should be like. The issues of having to wait for their posts to make it to
the pgsql.* lists and hierarchy are also a concern. Those interested
should visit news.groups and follow the passionate discussions on these
issues.
There is also the issue of having to ask their news providers to carry the
pgsql.* hierarchy. With a big 8 postgreql group, users will have instant
gratification of every server carrying it. When they see the pgsql
pointer, they will also become informed of the existance of the
mailing-lists and the pgsql.* hierarchy and can ask their providers to
carry them if that's what they want.
This is really about enhancing the popularity of PostgreSQL. Voting YES is
like watering a plant, it helps the whole project and community of
PostgreSQL grow. Each leg, whether it is the mailing list, the
comp.databases.postgresql group or the pgsql.* hierarchy will bring
PostgreSQL to a wider and bigger audience.
With that I hope everyone sees the great benefits of welcoming a new
comp.databases.postgresql group into the community. Just imagine going to
comp.databases and seeing this:
comp.databases.mysql
comp.databases.postgresql
comp.databases.oracle.misc
This would be wonderful, and a great step in the advocacy and expansion of
the community of PostgreSQL users.
Import Notes
Reference msg id not found: 1102030880.20810@isc.orgReference msg id not found: cooc1k$2841$1@news.hub.org
Marc G. Fournier From: wrote:
Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> writes:
Marc G. Fournier From: wrote:
The pgsql.* hierarchy is a not a private one, it is a public one carried
by several of the large usenet servers.Doesn't "private" denote a hierarchy in its own domain such as
microsoft.*,
and gnu.*? If I used an incorrect term, I'll be happy to change it.Not sure what general opinion is here, so hopefully someone else will jump
in, but to me 'private' means 'not accessible to the public' ...
Hopefully someone like Russ will tell us the correct term for domains like
microsoft.* and gnu.*. Those on the mailing lists, or in pgsql.*, visit
news.groups to read the RFD and make your opinions and voice heard! It is
important to shape it into something that will enhance and benfit users.
The charter and the RFD should go through a trial by fire to make it
excellent. Give me your criicizm, suggestions,etc. I can handle it!
RFDs are generally, by tradition, discussed in news.groups. That way those
who are interested can participate without being off-topic in the mailing
lists and pgsql.* hierarchies. I'm trying to balance being respectfull of
the mailing lists and pgsql.* groups by informing them of what is
happening, but also of not filling their lists needlessly with RFD talk.
;-)
Import Notes
Reference msg id not found: 1102030880.20810@isc.orgReference msg id not found: cooc1k$2841$1@news.hub.org
David Harmon <source@netcom.com> wrote in
news:41c44692.42645781@news.west.earthlink.net:
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:29:40 +0000 (UTC) in news.groups, Marc G.
Fournier From: <scrappy@hub.org> wrote,The pgsql.* hierarchy is a not a private one, it is a public one
carried by several of the large usenet servers.What are the rules for creating new groups in pgsgl.*?
Fiat-only by Marc. ;-)
--
Bill
Import Notes
Reference msg id not found: 1102030880.20810@isc.orgReference msg id not found: cooc1k$2841$1@news.hub.orgReference msg id not found: 41c44692.42645781@news.west.earthlink.net | Resolved by subject fallback
Woodchuck Bill wrote:
David Harmon <source@netcom.com> wrote in
news:41c44692.42645781@news.west.earthlink.net:On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:29:40 +0000 (UTC) in news.groups, Marc G.
Fournier From: <scrappy@hub.org> wrote,The pgsql.* hierarchy is a not a private one, it is a public one
carried by several of the large usenet servers.What are the rules for creating new groups in pgsgl.*?
I believe that is something that would be discussed amongst the
community but at this point it probably points to, "if there is
a mailing list, there is a corresponding pgsql.* group."
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
Fiat-only by Marc. ;-)
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of PostgreSQL Replication, and plPHP.
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQLJan Wieck wrote:
On 12/3/2004 3:32 PM, Woodchuck Bill wrote:
jd@commandprompt.com ("Joshua D. Drake") wrote in
news:41B0C39E.9090804@commandprompt.com:So the current state of affairs is that we have the gated, official
pgsql.* newsgroups, and the comp.* stuff is not gated in either
direction?Yes.
If that's the case, there should be a weekly/monthly reminder posting
on the comp.* side set up, pointing out that these are not official
groups and that real PostgreSQL questions are better asked somewhere
else, if the intention is to reach real developers and get real help.
I don't want to see people wasting a lot of time or getting confused
because they found the wrong newsgroups first.Why would the comp.* group be the wrong group? Just an additional
resource. The proponent said that he would post weekly pointers about the
pgsql.* hierarchy to the comp.* group, but expecting him to post
something negative about the comp.* group is asking too much of him. This
group is not meant to be a competing resource..it is just another
channel, and another plug for the open-source community. Stop treating it
like a bad thing.You are insulting non-developer advanced pgsql.* users that would be
using the comp.* group by inferring that only the developers are capable
of answering questions. Do the Oracle developers, or MSsql developers
participate in the respective comp.* groups for their products? Most
probably not. Are those newsgroups extremely useful resources for users
of those products? Very much so.I didn't say that only developers are capable of that.
Since the mailing list to comp.databases.postgresql.general gating was
stopped over a week ago, there has been zero communication on that
newsgroup.
From what I understand, it is impossible to post to that newsgroup now. In
google it says the groups are not archived anymore and the post function is
disabled.
I never got the comp.databases.postgresql.* groups from my newsprovider so I
cannot guess if that is the case with other news providers. But I surmise
that it is also true in their case.
What I think has happened is that the gateway is sending all posts to that
group to pgsql.*.
I guess, that currently all of the developers and advanced
users are either on the mailing list or using the pgsql.* groups.And since there are no forums at all where you have direct access to
Oracle or MSSql developers, this isn't exactly what I call a good
example. Would they still be that usefull if like in our case all
developers, experienced dba's and advanced users would be on oracle.* or
microsoft.* groups already?So how exactly do you think that big number of non-developer advanced
PostgreSQL users will populate the comp.* groups? I don't see them there
right now, and without them the comp.* groups are the wrong groups
because you will not get answers to questions there.
Look at this poll.
http://scripts.postgresql.org/survey.php?View=1&SurveyID=36
Import Notes
Reference msg id not found: 1102030880.20810@isc.org | Resolved by subject fallback
Mike Cox wrote:
Jan Wieck wrote:
On 12/3/2004 3:32 PM, Woodchuck Bill wrote:
jd@commandprompt.com ("Joshua D. Drake") wrote in
news:41B0C39E.9090804@commandprompt.com:So the current state of affairs is that we have the gated, official
pgsql.* newsgroups, and the comp.* stuff is not gated in either
direction?
If you want more news servers to carry pgsql.*, consider emailing
news@individual.net, and request them to carry pgsql.*.
I've already emailed them, and hopefully if we get enough people asking,
they will add the groups.
Import Notes
Reference msg id not found: 1102030880.20810@isc.org
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Mike Cox wrote:
If you want more news servers to carry pgsql.*, consider emailing
news@individual.net, and request them to carry pgsql.*.
I've done one better ... I email'd and arranged a direct peerage between
our servers, so that the groups are there, and all articles available ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On 12/3/2004 4:12 PM, Mike Cox wrote:
Jan Wieck wrote:
So how exactly do you think that big number of non-developer advanced
PostgreSQL users will populate the comp.* groups? I don't see them there
right now, and without them the comp.* groups are the wrong groups
because you will not get answers to questions there.Look at this poll.
http://scripts.postgresql.org/survey.php?View=1&SurveyID=36
The question is only about _an official newsgroup_. To contradict my
statement above, the survey question would have to ask about _an
official comp.* group NOT gated to the mailing lists_. And it would also
have to point out who already said very clearly that and why they would
stay on the mailing lists only.
Interpreting this survey result as
"a large number of experienced and advanced PostgreSQL users would
consider to move to a newsgroup where their questions will not be read
by Tom Lane, Stephen Szabo (and many other key players who said NO to
this on the mailing list already)"
is IMHO a too far strech.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
On 3 Dec 2004 20:34:36 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote:
David Harmon <source@netcom.com> wrote in
news:41c44692.42645781@news.west.earthlink.net:On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:29:40 +0000 (UTC) in news.groups, Marc G.
Fournier From: <scrappy@hub.org> wrote,The pgsql.* hierarchy is a not a private one, it is a public one
carried by several of the large usenet servers.What are the rules for creating new groups in pgsgl.*?
Fiat-only by Marc. ;-)
I think that the term that is occasionally used is that the hierarchy
has a hierarchy czar. That is the most straightforward way to manage
a hierarchy. I did not say that it was the best or the worst, only
the most straightforward. It doesn't address the question of what
happens if the czar disappears, for instance.
- - Bob McClenon
Import Notes
Reference msg id not found: 1102030880.20810@isc.orgReference msg id not found: cooc1k$2841$1@news.hub.orgReference msg id not found: 41c44692.42645781@news.west.earthlink.net
On Saturday, in article
<tto3r01vijeu2n9ggr6r5pl3p36bcmn1nf@4ax.com>
robert.mcclenon@verizon.net "Robert McClenon" wrote:
I think that the term that is occasionally used is that the hierarchy
has a hierarchy czar. That is the most straightforward way to manage
a hierarchy. I did not say that it was the best or the worst, only
the most straightforward. It doesn't address the question of what
happens if the czar disappears, for instance.
Seventy-five years' rule by Soviet?
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk
"I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
software and decent hardware support."
Import Notes
Reference msg id not found: 1102030880.20810@isc.orgReference msg id not found: cooc1k$2841$1@news.hub.orgReference msg id not found: 41c44692.42645781@news.west.earthlink.net
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 01:24:46 +0000 (GMT), bhk@dsl.co.uk (Brian
{Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:
On Saturday, in article
<tto3r01vijeu2n9ggr6r5pl3p36bcmn1nf@4ax.com>
robert.mcclenon@verizon.net "Robert McClenon" wrote:I think that the term that is occasionally used is that the hierarchy
has a hierarchy czar. That is the most straightforward way to manage
a hierarchy. I did not say that it was the best or the worst, only
the most straightforward. It doesn't address the question of what
happens if the czar disappears, for instance.Seventy-five years' rule by Soviet?
Russia takes over Usenet. Film at eleven.
--
Just your average Joe.
Import Notes
Reference msg id not found: 1102030880.20810@isc.orgReference msg id not found: cooc1k$2841$1@news.hub.orgReference msg id not found: 41c44692.42645781@news.west.earthlink.net