X-Original-To: pgsql-www-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC557D1E252; Wed, 12 May 2004 15:51:07 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 40821-01; Wed, 12 May 2004 15:50:48 -0300 (ADT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (u46n208.hfx.eastlink.ca [24.222.46.208]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19E0FD1E278; Wed, 12 May 2004 15:50:47 -0300 (ADT) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9FEB53E22E; Wed, 12 May 2004 15:50:48 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E9113E22D; Wed, 12 May 2004 15:50:48 -0300 (ADT) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 15:50:48 -0300 (ADT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" X-X-Sender: scrappy@ganymede.hub.org To: Rod Taylor Cc: "Marc G. Fournier" , elein , Robert Treat , Josh Berkus , "pgsql-www@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL Users' Group sites In-Reply-To: <1084395267.62466.39.camel@jester> Message-ID: <20040512154735.A35531@ganymede.hub.org> References: <200405120946.01804.josh@postgresql.org> <1084385431.14986.2576.camel@camel> <20040512111221.A22440@cookie.varlena.com> <20040512154006.Q35531@ganymede.hub.org> <1084395267.62466.39.camel@jester> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200405/44 X-Sequence-Number: 4423 On Wed, 12 May 2004, Rod Taylor wrote: > On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 14:41, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > Agreed ... but, that does call into question what happens if a group in > > French *does* start a "phyiscal get together" user group, and isn't > > assocated with the 'web prescense only' one? Does one over-ride the > > other? > > What would you do if 3 different French cities started independent > groups? Valid question ... but, IMHO, if we are going to define (and I'm not saying that we need to) a UG, the one thing that should be defined is "region of coverage" ... having one UG say that its "for France" is, IMHO, way way too broad. Never having been there myself, but even if based centrally in Paris (semi-central to the country, no?), I can imagine it the country is larger then a 1hr driving radius from there, no? I think it would be redundant to have two in, say, San Francisco, but not to have one in SF and one in Berkeley, for instance ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664