On Sat, 29 Jun 2002, Guido Ostkamp wrote: > Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Guido Ostkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I am sure, a lot of people would be happy, if those groups were > >> officially introduced and hosted on many international newservers. > > > > Yup. Are you volunteering to be the proponent who shepherds a vote > > through the official process? > > No. > > If you look closely at the 'comp.databases.*' hierarchy you will find > that most of the databases listed have only one group, with the > exception of the big players like Oracle. That means, the maximum you > would be able to get is a 'comp.databases.postgresql', but not the bunch > of groups which is available here. I don't believe admins here would > agree to throw away all others. > > What I recommend to do, is that the names of the groups here gets > changed by stripping of the 'comp.databases' prefix. The group names > would then make up their own main hierarchy ('postgres.*') like it > exists for other stuff or companies as well (like 'microsoft.*') etc. > > That would AFAIK no longer violate any rules, and allow webmasters from > outside to host these groups. Only the people reading these groups > would need a small and easy reconfiguration of their subscribed lists > which could be announced by a posting before its done, that's all. > > What do you think? > > BTW: I see you belong to the core development team. Are you responsible > for running this server news.postgresql.org?
Nope, I am ... and no, we won't be changing the group names ... ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly