Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.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.