On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Jim Seymour wrote:
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:[snip]
Personally I think Marc should have waited awhile longer to see whether the news.groups process would produce a positive vote, but that's just my own $0.02.
That's the way *I* would've preferred to see it handled. Then again: *I* was looking forward to the pgsql discussions widely propagated in Usenet. Others may not care.
He may well have decided that that wasn't going anywhere. The part of the discussion that has reached this list certainly has not given one cause to think it will :-(
Au contraire. It looked to me like the general attitude was "Well, some wrong stuff happened, but now that they've been around as long as they have, where they have, maybe best to just let 'em become real."
And I see things about half way between the two of you ... "let's make official just a few of the more active groups, and lance the rest" ... by doing th pgsql.*, it gets them all out of the Big8 and keeps them accessibl under one hierarchy for those that are reading them via news.postgresql.org, and if the 4 (or was it 5) that were deemed active enough for comp.* base the CFV, its not difficult to setup gating for those few so that posts aren't lose there either ...
---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
---------------------------(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
