On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Jim Seymour wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664