Since we have the discussion going, someone mentioned that the group name
should be comp.databases.postgresql. I think this is a good name and I'd
like to see what everyone thinks of it.
There is also the issue of the charter. I would like to get some feed back
on what the best charter could be for the revision of the RFD so it is a
strong as possible.
So the things I'm seeing that people are having the most problems with the
current RFD are:
1. The name. They want a better name, and also one that doesn't clash with
the "bogus" (usenet terminology, no disrespect intended)
comp.databases.postgresql.general mailing-list newsgroup gateway name
space.
Someone suggested "comp.databases.postgresql". I think that is a good one,
and if others agree (please respond in this thread), then that will be one
of the changes in the next version of the RFD.
2. The charter. A lot of people expressed feedback that my default charter
wasnt very good. I'll agree with them as it was provided as a starting
point. I would like the community to craft the charter and the one they
decide upon, I will include in the next RFD.
If there is anything else that would make the next postgresql RFD stronger,
and better, please discuss it in this thread.
I also think that a postgresql group should definately be in the big eight
under the comp.* hierarchy. The (newly created) alt group should not be a
primary place for discussion because it is not guarenteed that all "proper"
usenet servers will carry it, as they would if it were in the big 8. There
is also a certain air of respectablity to being in the big 8. It means
that it has gone through a process and has passed scrutiny. Then people
would find postgresql next to oracle in the comp.databases.* hierarchy! ;-)