Re: I spoke with Marc from the postgresql mailing list.

He wants to be in the big 8. He would like to be under the comp.databases.*
domain and will not to move it to something like postgresql.*.

So he seems to agree with what was my original intention, which was to make
the current groups proper members of the big 8.

I also offered to let him take over the process as he understands gatewaying
and the details better than I. I also offered to let him create the next
RFD, and hopefully he will agree to do it if he has the time. He is the
most connected member of the postgresql team and it would be right for him
to decide how the groups should be run.

I haven't gotten a response to my email on whether he has the time to take
over the process, but I would like to let you know that I've asked Marc to
design the solution the best way he sees fit, and if he posts a revised RFD,
that one is the one to vote on.

Also, he pointed out that for those who want to get the postgresql groups
when their usenet sever doesn't carry them, the solution would be to point
their newsreaders to news.postgresql.org.

Please, those of you on the mailing list, DO cross post to news.groups.
This is where the news providers, admins, ect. in usenet group creation
meet. It would help tremendously if they are involved in the process.

For those who are unsure of how big 8 newsgroups are created, visit
news.groups. They have a Guidelines for Bigh Eight Newsgroup Creation post
annually. It explains how it works.

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Mike Cox wrote:

> Also, he pointed out that for those who want to get the postgresql
> groups when their usenet sever doesn't carry them, the solution would be
> to point their newsreaders to news.postgresql.org.

The other point I'd like to make ... we have two mail<->gateways setup, a
second one available at news.fr.postgresql.org, to give us redundancy in
both directions ...

The gateways have *always* been bi-directional, since their first
inception over 4 years ago ...

Finally ... if anyone is running a news server that wishes to get the
hierarchy directly from the source, please email me and we can discuss a
direct link ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

On Sunday, in article <2v7e2fF2h9nkcU1(at)uni-berlin(dot)de>
mikecoxlinux(at)yahoo(dot)com "Mike Cox" wrote:

> Also, he pointed out that for those who want to get the postgresql groups
> when their usenet sever doesn't carry them, the solution would be to point
> their newsreaders to news.postgresql.org.

Which only confirms my opinion that he's a fuckwit. The concept of
Usenet is NOT that everyone has to read a newsgroup from one particular
server; it's that everyone ought to be able to access any newsgroup from
THEIR own particular most convenient server. Servers exist (and at one
time there were hundreds of thousands of them) specifically to reduce
wasted bandwidth in having everyone and his dog accessing information
that is only in one place, when it could just as easily be in thousands
of places and thereby result in use only of local bandwidth, rather than
international.

(Personally, I blame the original authors of Netscape for incorporating a
news "reader" that could access multiple servers. Before then, most
readers of news had no option other than to read ALL their desired
newsgroups from ONE server, that of their university/employer/ISP. Since
that capability appeared in Netscape, and other browser/newsreaders,
there has been a proliferation of *really* private newsgroups, such as
borland.*; even microsoft.* was originally only available from one
"site".)

--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk(at)dsl(dot)co(dot)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."

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 16:50:34 -0400 (AST), scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org ("Marc
G. Fournier") wrote:

>On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Mike Cox wrote:
>
>> Also, he pointed out that for those who want to get the postgresql
>> groups when their usenet sever doesn't carry them, the solution would be
>> to point their newsreaders to news.postgresql.org.
>
>The other point I'd like to make ... we have two mail<->gateways setup, a
>second one available at news.fr.postgresql.org, to give us redundancy in
>both directions ...
>
>The gateways have *always* been bi-directional, since their first
>inception over 4 years ago ...

They may be bi-directional but they're still broken. Posts to the
usenet groups get propigated instead of sent to the moderator. That
means they make it to the groups and MAY make it to the list.

>
>Finally ... if anyone is running a news server that wishes to get the
>hierarchy directly from the source, please email me and we can discuss a
>direct link ...

--
gburnore(at)databasix dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 ÝÛ³
Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com
===========================================================================

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Gary L. Burnore wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 16:50:34 -0400 (AST), scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org ("Marc
> G. Fournier") wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Mike Cox wrote:
>>
>>> Also, he pointed out that for those who want to get the postgresql
>>> groups when their usenet sever doesn't carry them, the solution would be
>>> to point their newsreaders to news.postgresql.org.
>>
>> The other point I'd like to make ... we have two mail<->gateways setup, a
>> second one available at news.fr.postgresql.org, to give us redundancy in
>> both directions ...
>>
>> The gateways have *always* been bi-directional, since their first
>> inception over 4 years ago ...
>
> They may be bi-directional but they're still broken. Posts to the
> usenet groups get propigated instead of sent to the moderator. That
> means they make it to the groups and MAY make it to the list.

If they make it to the gateway, they make it to the moderator and make it
to the lists ... I know this for a fact, because I'm the moderator that
goes through an approves them...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in news:2v8it1F2idoh9U1(at)uni-
berlin.de:

> Uhh. My head is spinning with the complexity of this. Marc is fine with
> being in the big eight official *if* the groups stay the same and it
> doesn't affect the mailing list. This will just have to be a bug in the
> system if you are correct in that the problem is unsolveable without it
> becoming a moderated newsgroup.
>

That 'bug' might bring some unwanted NO votes your way. I have never voted
against a proposal, but there is a first time for everything.

My suggestions:

-Cut it down to about 3 to 5 groups maximum. A 20-group reorganization of
the comp.databases.* hierarchy is ridiculous. I would be inclined to vote
against it on principle. If you and Marc agree that 20 groups are *really*
necessary, then fine..create the POSTGRESQL hierarchy and notify ISC.

-Propose your second RFD with any added groups as soon as possible.
Remember, your 21-day minimum discussion period will reset as soon as you
add any other groups to the proposal, so figure out which groups are the
most important and propose them ASAP. If the process drags on for too long,
people will start to get annoyed with the process and lose interest. I
speak from experience. I was one of the proponents for a multi group
proposal that started out as a single group proposal.

-Try to get Marc in on the news.groups discussion. Even if he won't become
the primary proponent, he should *at least* weigh in on the proposal. Maybe
you could remain the primary proponent, and Marc would come aboard as a
second? You can have as many proponents as you like. We had six on our
proposal.

--
Bill

In article <20041108(dot)0106(dot)58448snz(at)dsl(dot)co(dot)uk>,
bhk(at)dsl(dot)co(dot)uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:

> newsgroups from ONE server, that of their university/employer/ISP. Since
> that capability appeared in Netscape, and other browser/newsreaders,
> there has been a proliferation of *really* private newsgroups, such as
> borland.*; even microsoft.* was originally only available from one
> "site".)

Blaming netscape for microsoft.* is rather funny.

-Mike

Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:

>I also offered to let him take over the process as he understands gatewaying
>and the details better than I. I also offered to let him create the next
>RFD, and hopefully he will agree to do it if he has the time. He is the
>most connected member of the postgresql team and it would be right for him
>to decide how the groups should be run.

He doesn't have to be the primary proponent. Many other proposals
have had multiple proponents, with responsibilities distributed in
a variety of ways. In this case, he could simply be the technical
issues proponent, or topic expert proponent, so to speak.

For example, he might be able to provide you with more charter
info, which would be really helpful given that the groups exist
and that there is probably a decent idea of how the groups seem
to have settled. Then you can write it up, have him check it,
then you can put it in the next RFD.

You can also ask him which are the most popular lists, so that
you can add those to the RFD. That way you can get a good start
on the "official" hierarchy, AND reduce the problem people would
have had in posting to the correct newsgroup for a given postgresql
subtopic.

This way, you can stay on to push the proposal forward, AND the
current moderator is involved to maintain the continuity with
the mailing lists and gateways, both in "official" capacities.

ru

--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.

--- Brian {Hamilton Kelly} <bhk(at)dsl(dot)co(dot)uk> wrote:

> Which only confirms my opinion that he's a fuckwit.

Evidently some of the nastiness out there on Usenet is
propagating into our lists in advance of any change.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com

On 11/7/2004 8:06 PM, Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote:
> On Sunday, in article <2v7e2fF2h9nkcU1(at)uni-berlin(dot)de>
> mikecoxlinux(at)yahoo(dot)com "Mike Cox" wrote:
>
>> Also, he pointed out that for those who want to get the postgresql groups
>> when their usenet sever doesn't carry them, the solution would be to point
>> their newsreaders to news.postgresql.org.
>
> Which only confirms my opinion that he's a fuckwit.

And you think that sort of comment makes your opinion welcome here?

I haven't used usenet news for a few years, and I am shocked by the loss
of quality over there. Certain technical groups used to be very much on
the level of politeness and respect, our mailing lists reflect. If this
is what we can expect if we encourage more ISP's to carry our lists,
then I am strictly for "discouraging". Maybe our goal should not be to
make the PostgreSQL lists available by default on every news server.

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:29:05 -0500, JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com (Jan Wieck)
wrote:

>On 11/7/2004 8:06 PM, Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote:
>> On Sunday, in article <2v7e2fF2h9nkcU1(at)uni-berlin(dot)de>
>> mikecoxlinux(at)yahoo(dot)com "Mike Cox" wrote:
>>
>>> Also, he pointed out that for those who want to get the postgresql groups
>>> when their usenet sever doesn't carry them, the solution would be to point
>>> their newsreaders to news.postgresql.org.
>>
>> Which only confirms my opinion that he's a fuckwit.
>
>And you think that sort of comment makes your opinion welcome here?
>
>I haven't used usenet news for a few years, and I am shocked by the loss
>of quality over there. Certain technical groups used to be very much on
>the level of politeness and respect, our mailing lists reflect.

They still are. That which you see from the likes of Brian aren't the
norm in comp.* groups.

>If this is what we can expect if we encourage more ISP's to carry our lists,
>then I am strictly for "discouraging". Maybe our goal should not be to
>make the PostgreSQL lists available by default on every news server.

This isn't about encouraging ISP's to carry your lists. It's about
fixing a problem caused by your list's gateways.

--
gburnore(at)databasix dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 ÝÛ³
Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com
===========================================================================

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, Gary L. Burnore wrote:

> This isn't about encouraging ISP's to carry your lists. It's about
> fixing a problem caused by your list's gateways.

A problem that you perceive, yet nobody else seems to ... very isolated
problem ... of coufse, you *could* set the group to moderated on your news
server, with approprait moderator address setup, and be done with it ...
in fact, I even offered you a direct feed so that time delays were at a
minimum ... *shrug*

Russ has already commented that he a) understands what we are doing
(which, apparently you don't, but that's okay) and b) knows of other
groups doing similar gatewaying ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

> If the process drags on for too long, people will start to get
> annoyed with the process and lose interest. I speak from experience.

This hasn't dragged on too long? People aren't already annoyed?
Seriously, the usenet people losing interest in this "problem" might be
the best case scenario.

Patrick B. Kelly
------------------------------------------------------
http://patrickbkelly.org

At 07:30 PM 11/13/2004, you wrote:

>> If the process drags on for too long, people will start to get annoyed
>> with the process and lose interest. I speak from experience.
>
>This hasn't dragged on too long?

Not at all.

>People aren't already annoyed?

Not those that matter.

>Seriously, the usenet people losing interest in this "problem" might be
>the best case scenario.

Ya know, that's kinda like when a business owner hopes the neigborhood will
forget about a toxic waste spill.

In this case, it's not going to be forgotten as long as someone's shoving
your emails up USENet's proverbial ass. If you REALLY want it over with
quick, shut off the mail-to-news.

>
>> Seriously, the usenet people losing interest in this "problem" might
>> be the best case scenario.
>
> Ya know, that's kinda like when a business owner hopes the neigborhood
> will forget about a toxic waste spill.
>
> In this case, it's not going to be forgotten as long as someone's
> shoving your emails up USENet's proverbial ass. If you REALLY want it
> over with quick, shut off the mail-to-news.

Perhaps not the best option but that is an option. The mailing list and
news.postgresql.org seem to work fine for many people who "matter".

Patrick B. Kelly
------------------------------------------------------
http://patrickbkelly.org

bhk(at)dsl(dot)co(dot)uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) writes:

>(Personally, I blame the original authors of Netscape for incorporating a
>news "reader" that could access multiple servers. Before then, most
>readers of news had no option other than to read ALL their desired
>newsgroups from ONE server, that of their university/employer/ISP. Since
>that capability appeared in Netscape, and other browser/newsreaders,
>there has been a proliferation of *really* private newsgroups, such as
>borland.*; even microsoft.* was originally only available from one
>"site".)

I've been involved in private newsgroup hierarchies since about
1996. They exist, they're useful, and they're important. I've written
code to let me use my own newsreader with multiple servers for just such a
reason.

I firmly believe that there should be a better standard for
newsgroup names that includes (the|a) server you can access it through.

- Tim Skirvin (tskirvin(at)killfile(dot)org)
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/software/ Skirv's Software

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>
>> This isn't about encouraging ISP's to carry your lists. It's about
>> fixing a problem caused by your list's gateways.
>
> A problem that you perceive, yet nobody else seems to ... very isolated
> problem ... of coufse, you *could* set the group to moderated on your news
> server, with approprait moderator address setup, and be done with it ...
> in fact, I even offered you a direct feed so that time delays were at a
> minimum ... *shrug*
>
> Russ has already commented that he a) understands what we are doing
> (which, apparently you don't, but that's okay) and b) knows of other
> groups doing similar gatewaying ...

I'd have no problem with it if you either didn't use Big-8 names or
else kept your gateway groups restricted to your own server. But these
groups are propagating to *other* servers which is a clear violation of
the spirit of USENET. If these groups are not added to the "official"
checkgroups list (either through the normal voting process or by fiat
from Russ et al.) then I intend to request that my ISP remove them from
our server.

--
Wayne Brown (HPCC #1104) | "When your tail's in a crack, you improvise
fwbrown(at)bellsouth(dot)net | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give
| your pelt to the trapper."
"e^(i*pi) = -1" -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock"

On Monday, in article
<tskirvin(dot)20041115160809$4f2c(at)cairo(dot)ks(dot)uiuc(dot)edu>
tskirvin(at)killfile(dot)org "Tim Skirvin" wrote:

> bhk(at)dsl(dot)co(dot)uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) writes:
>
> >(Personally, I blame the original authors of Netscape for incorporating a
> >news "reader" that could access multiple servers. Before then, most
> >readers of news had no option other than to read ALL their desired
> >newsgroups from ONE server, that of their university/employer/ISP. Since
> >that capability appeared in Netscape, and other browser/newsreaders,
> >there has been a proliferation of *really* private newsgroups, such as
> >borland.*; even microsoft.* was originally only available from one
> >"site".)
>
> I've been involved in private newsgroup hierarchies since about
> 1996. They exist, they're useful, and they're important. I've written
> code to let me use my own newsreader with multiple servers for just such a
> reason.
>
> I firmly believe that there should be a better standard for
> newsgroup names that includes (the|a) server you can access it through.

Hmm; what about RFC1738:

3.7. NNTP

The nntp URL scheme is an alternative method of referencing news
articles, useful for specifying news articles from NNTP servers (RFC
977).

A nntp URL take the form:

nntp://<host>:<port>/<newsgroup-name>/<article-number>

where <host> and <port> are as described in Section 3.1. If :<port>
is omitted, the port defaults to 119.

The <newsgroup-name> is the name of the group, while the <article-
number> is the numeric id of the article within that newsgroup.

Note that while nntp: URLs specify a unique location for the article
resource, most NNTP servers currently on the Internet today are
configured only to allow access from local clients, and thus nntp
URLs do not designate globally accessible resources. Thus, the news:
form of URL is preferred as a way of identifying news articles.

Mind you, IME there are few browsers masquerading as newsreaders that
understand the <news:Message-ID> form of URL, so the likelihood of
finding one that bothers to interpret nntp: is minimal.

--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk(at)dsl(dot)co(dot)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."