Re: RFD

Bruno Wolff III wrote:

> I saw a post indicating a request for discussion on the creation of an
> official big 8 newsgroup comp.databases.postgresql.general. According to
> the notice this newsgroup already exists in google groups and is actively
> being used. The discussion will be in news.groups.

Actually, the group does exist and is spread out on some servers across the
world. Google carries it as you mentioned, as does netfront.net.

The problem is that the postgresql groups have not gone through the offical
process that is required in order to be a comp.* group. Because of this
many servers consider the groups "bogus" and refuse to carry them. Having
a rogue "comp" group is considered bad, and the correct thing is either be
under an alt, such as alt.databases.postgresql.general OR go through the
official process of becoming a member of the comp.* hierarchy.

The process of going under the comp hierarchy is simple in that a Request
for Discussion is filed (RFD), and then 21 days later a call for votes
(CFV) is issued. That is where everyone here should vote for postgresql to
be a member of the "big 8".

There are no downsides to this, and there are huge number of benefits from
what I can see. Among them is that EVERY server worldwide will now be
carrying the postgresql group. Many don't now because it is a "bogus"
group because it hasn't gone through the process of RFD and CFV. A big
news server that doesn't carry it is individual.net.

This can only mean good things as the number of users who can participate in
discussions will increase as their news servers can carry the group.

>
> I mention this because I thought people on the advocacy list might be
> interested in this group being created as a way to help publicize
> Postgres.
>

Thank you. I would also like to mention that the RFD can be made better.
Any suggestions and improvements will be made!

> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
>> I saw a post indicating a request for discussion on the creation of an
>> official big 8 newsgroup comp.databases.postgresql.general. According to
>> the notice this newsgroup already exists in google groups and is actively
>> being used. The discussion will be in news.groups.
>

I would like to point out that it is NOT creating a different group. It
will still be the same, and there will not be a split or anything. What
will happen is that the postgresql group will become legitimate, and
therefore all usenet servers will carry the group.

So this is a process that should have happened when the
comp.databases.postresql.* usenet groups were originally created. I'm
seeing a lot of support for this, except for one person (who seems to not
like me personally).

I would welcome people to read through news.groups and follow the postgresql
threads.

P.S. I am just posting this so people can review the RFD (request for
discussion) and please post any suggestions on improvements/likes/dislikes
so it can be made better. As not to distract the discussions away from the
normal topic, I will post to the postgresql groups no more than once per
week until it is time for the call for votes (CFV).

In article <2v0ibhF2dsc92U1(at)uni-berlin(dot)de>,
Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>
>I would like to point out that it is NOT creating a different group. It
>will still be the same, and there will not be a split or anything. What
>will happen is that the postgresql group will become legitimate, and
>therefore all usenet servers will carry the group.

[I'm posting this from news.groups, where this discussion is being
crossposted. I have no connection with the postgresql groups myself; I'm
just a longtime observer of the newsgroup-creation process.]

Just to clarify Mike's comments and make a minor correction... if this
proposal comes to a vote and passes, it will *not* guarantee that "all"
Usenet servers will carry the comp.databases.postgresql.general. There
are servers that do not keep in sync with the "official" list of groups
maintained by the moderators of news.announce.newgroups, out of laziness
or other reasons. Nevertheless, it *will* cause significantly more
servers to carry the group than before, including most or all of the
"well-managed" ones.

And it will have no effect on the availability or functioning of the group
on those servers that currently do carry it, except of course that you'll
probably have more postings to read.

--
Jon Bell <jtbellm4h(at)presby(dot)edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA

On Fri, 2004-11-05 at 05:26, Mike Cox wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
> > I saw a post indicating a request for discussion on the creation of an
> > official big 8 newsgroup comp.databases.postgresql.general. According to
> > the notice this newsgroup already exists in google groups and is actively
> > being used. The discussion will be in news.groups.
>
> Actually, the group does exist and is spread out on some servers across the
> world. Google carries it as you mentioned, as does netfront.net.
>
> The problem is that the postgresql groups have not gone through the offical
> process that is required in order to be a comp.* group. Because of this
> many servers consider the groups "bogus" and refuse to carry them. Having
> a rogue "comp" group is considered bad, and the correct thing is either be
> under an alt, such as alt.databases.postgresql.general OR go through the
> official process of becoming a member of the comp.* hierarchy.
>
> The process of going under the comp hierarchy is simple in that a Request
> for Discussion is filed (RFD), and then 21 days later a call for votes
> (CFV) is issued. That is where everyone here should vote for postgresql to
> be a member of the "big 8".
>

Will you post the CFV link on GENERAL (and here) when it comes out?

That will help us all pitch in.

--
Best Regards, Simon Riggs

On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 09:50:02 +0000,
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Will you post the CFV link on GENERAL (and here) when it comes out?

Aren't there some restrictions where the notices can be posted?