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 9F0FED1E286; Wed, 12 May 2004 18:04:04 -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 72393-05; Wed, 12 May 2004 18:03:47 -0300 (ADT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (u46n208.hfx.eastlink.ca [24.222.46.208]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5412CD1E325; Wed, 12 May 2004 18:03:42 -0300 (ADT) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 36E2B3E0D2; Wed, 12 May 2004 18:03:45 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33E3D3E0CF; Wed, 12 May 2004 18:03:45 -0300 (ADT) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 18:03:45 -0300 (ADT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" X-X-Sender: scrappy@ganymede.hub.org To: Tom Lane Cc: josh@agliodbs.com, "Marc G. Fournier" , Rod Taylor , elein , Robert Treat , "pgsql-www@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL Users' Group sites In-Reply-To: <28538.1084395043@sss.pgh.pa.us> Message-ID: <20040512180133.W35531@ganymede.hub.org> References: <200405120946.01804.josh@postgresql.org> <1084395267.62466.39.camel@jester> <20040512154735.A35531@ganymede.hub.org> <200405121334.54328.josh@agliodbs.com> <28538.1084395043@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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: 200405/50 X-Sequence-Number: 4429 On Wed, 12 May 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus 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 ... 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, and I think monthly, schedualed meetings should be a big one ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664