Re: RFD: comp.databases.postgresql.general

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(at)uni-berlin(dot)de> for an example of the
proponent's temperament.

"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.

RATIONALE: comp.databases.postgresql.general

comp.databases.postgresql.general exists in groups.google.com. It
has never gone through the big eight process of RFD and CFV, therefore
is considered "bogus" and many news servers will not carry
comp.databases.postgresql.general.

comp.databases.postgresql.general is already very active, with many
people posting and reading through groups.google.com. Having it
be an official big eight group will enable people to follow it
through their usenet servers.

CHARTER: comp.databases.postgresql.general

The comp.databases.postgresql.general unmoderated newsgroup will
provide a general discussion location for users of the open-source
PostgreSQL RDBMS.

Postgresql is the most advanced open source relational database
management system with thousands of users. It has won many awards
and is distributed with almost every Linux and BSD distribution.

PostgreSQL may be freely downloaded from http://www.postgresql.org.

END CHARTER.

PROCEDURE:

This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase
of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups
should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue
for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this
proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For
Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion
warrants it. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.

All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.

This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How
to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal." Please refer to these
documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any
questions about the process.

DISTRIBUTION:

This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:

news.announce.newgroups, news.groups

A pointer will be posted to the following group:

comp.databases.postgresql.general on Google Groups

Proponent: Mike Cox mikecoxlinux(at)yahoo(dot)com

On 4 Nov 2004 17:17:20 GMT, "Andy" <me(at)privacy(dot)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(at)uni-berlin(dot)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(at)privacy(dot)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(at)uni-berlin(dot)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>

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(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

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(at)uni-berlin(dot)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(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664