On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 06:03:45PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> > > I would *love* to have the problem of so many users' groups that
> > > they overlap.
> >
> > I agree with Josh. We can sort it out if and when there's
> > actually a conflict, but at the moment this argument seems pretty
> > pointless.
>
> I have to agree with Robert on this though ... a UG, at least what I
> think is the defacto standard for it, is a group that gets together
> ... linking to "PostgreSQL related web sites" is not for
> pug.postgresql.org, or, at least, shouldn't be
Why not?
> ... a 'Related Sites' link off of www.postgresql.org, yes ...
>
> I'm not so much worried about micro-managing, but there should be
> *some* criteria for inclusion,
Great! How about willingness to be included? At this stage, that's
plenty.
> and I think monthly, schedualed meetings should be a big one ...
Please pardon me while I add in a little reality check to this grand
plan. SF PostgreSQL Users' Group, far and away the largest to date,
has had one once every 2-3 months. According to this "criterion,"
there are no pugs at all right now, let alone three fledgling ones.
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!