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 61E97D1E315; Wed, 12 May 2004 18:16:19 -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 73639-10; Wed, 12 May 2004 18:16:00 -0300 (ADT) Received: from fetter.org (dsl092-188-065.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.92.188.65]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 472D4D1E307; Wed, 12 May 2004 18:15:56 -0300 (ADT) Received: from fetter.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by fetter.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i4CLFgs0018857; Wed, 12 May 2004 14:15:42 -0700 Received: (from shackle@localhost) by fetter.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i4CLFfZJ018853; Wed, 12 May 2004 14:15:41 -0700 Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 14:15:41 -0700 From: David Fetter To: PostgreSQL WWW Cc: "Marc G. Fournier" , Tom Lane , josh@agliodbs.com, Rod Taylor , elein , Robert Treat Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL Users' Group sites Message-ID: <20040512211541.GP1866@fetter.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> <20040512180133.W35531@ganymede.hub.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040512180133.W35531@ganymede.hub.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i 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: 200405/51 X-Sequence-Number: 4430 On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 06:03:45PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > 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 Why not? > ... 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, Great! How about willingness to be included? At this stage, that's plenty. > and I think monthly, schedualed meetings should be a big one ... Please pardon me while I add in a little reality check to this grand plan. SF PostgreSQL Users' Group, far and away the largest to date, has had one once every 2-3 months. According to this "criterion," there are no pugs at all right now, let alone three fledgling ones. Cheers, D -- David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote!