public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedRe: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
20+ messages / 6 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
@ 2004-09-29 07:32 Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-09-29 20:55 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy [email protected]
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Dave Page @ 2004-09-29 07:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: [email protected]; +Cc: pgsql-www
Hi Google Team,
Thank you for your reply. The comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy has
been there for many years now. I am unaware of any duplicates, however,
if someone has replicated the hierarchy elsewhere, then it is that copy
that should be removed.
With regard to the traffic level, as one of the PostgreSQL webmasters I
can see over 350,000 posts in our private archives over the last 8 years
or so - on average that works out at over 100 messages per day for the
hierarchy; a figure that is probably substantially higher than that now
given that the groups started with very little traffic and have grown
and grown over the years.
I would appreciate it if you would review the decision to suspend this
hierarchy.
Regards, Dave.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 29 September 2004 01:04
> To: Dave Page
> Subject: Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Thank you for your note. Typically when groups are tagged as
> 'no longer archived' it is because there are duplicated
> groups or the groups do not have substantial traffic.
>
> If newsgroups are classified as 'no longer archived' they
> can't be posted to through Google. However, we can review
> groups for re-classification if petitioned by users.
>
> Regards,
> The Google Team
>
> Original Message Follows:
> ------------------------
> From: "Dave Page" <[email protected]>
> Subject: comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
> Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:47:08 +0100
>
> Hi,
>
> I found today that groups.google.com is no longer archiving the
> comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy of newsgroups. This is
> an extremely important hierarchy to myself and to countless
> other PostgreSQL users who rely on these groups for
> discussion of the databases use and development, as evidenced
> by the hundreds of message that can be posted on a daily basis.
>
> I therefore respectfully ask that you reconsider your
> decision to suspend archiving of this group hierarchy.
>
> Regards, Dave.
>
> --
> Dave Page
> Network & Systems Manager
> The Vale Housing Association
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
2004-09-29 07:32 Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Dave Page <[email protected]>
@ 2004-09-29 20:55 ` [email protected]
2004-09-30 16:47 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 17:54 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-10-02 23:22 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 3 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: [email protected] @ 2004-09-29 20:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Page <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-www
Hi Dave,
Thank you for the information you provided in your reply. We really
appreciate your feedback, and we'll keep it in mind as we work to improve
Google Groups.
Regards,
The Google Team
Original Message Follows:
------------------------
From: "Dave Page" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 08:32:41 +0100
Hi Google Team,
Thank you for your reply. The comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy has
been there for many years now. I am unaware of any duplicates, however,
if someone has replicated the hierarchy elsewhere, then it is that copy
that should be removed.
With regard to the traffic level, as one of the PostgreSQL webmasters I
can see over 350,000 posts in our private archives over the last 8 years
or so - on average that works out at over 100 messages per day for the
hierarchy; a figure that is probably substantially higher than that now
given that the groups started with very little traffic and have grown
and grown over the years.
I would appreciate it if you would review the decision to suspend this
hierarchy.
Regards, Dave.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 29 September 2004 01:04
> To: Dave Page
> Subject: Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Thank you for your note. Typically when groups are tagged as
> 'no longer archived' it is because there are duplicated
> groups or the groups do not have substantial traffic.
>
> If newsgroups are classified as 'no longer archived' they
> can't be posted to through Google. However, we can review
> groups for re-classification if petitioned by users.
>
> Regards,
> The Google Team
>
> Original Message Follows:
> ------------------------
> From: "Dave Page" <[email protected]>
> Subject: comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
> Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:47:08 +0100
>
> Hi,
>
> I found today that groups.google.com is no longer archiving the
> comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy of newsgroups. This is
> an extremely important hierarchy to myself and to countless
> other PostgreSQL users who rely on these groups for
> discussion of the databases use and development, as evidenced
> by the hundreds of message that can be posted on a daily basis.
>
> I therefore respectfully ask that you reconsider your
> decision to suspend archiving of this group hierarchy.
>
> Regards, Dave.
>
> --
> Dave Page
> Network & Systems Manager
> The Vale Housing Association
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
2004-09-29 07:32 Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-09-29 20:55 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy [email protected]
@ 2004-09-30 16:47 ` Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 16:52 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Josh Berkus @ 2004-09-30 16:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-www
Dave,
> Thank you for the information you provided in your reply. We really
> appreciate your feedback, and we'll keep it in mind as we work to improve
> Google Groups.
This looks to me like they cut us off for ulterior reasons and are avoiding
the topic. Does it look that way to anyone else?
Is it time to hunt up members of the community who have contacts at google, or
start an e-mail petition drive?
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
2004-09-29 07:32 Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-09-29 20:55 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy [email protected]
2004-09-30 16:47 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
@ 2004-09-30 16:52 ` Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 17:07 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Marc G. Fournier @ 2004-09-30 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-www
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Dave,
>
>> Thank you for the information you provided in your reply. We really
>> appreciate your feedback, and we'll keep it in mind as we work to improve
>> Google Groups.
>
> This looks to me like they cut us off for ulterior reasons and are avoiding
> the topic. Does it look that way to anyone else?
I kinda read it as a 'form letter' response ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [email protected] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
2004-09-29 07:32 Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-09-29 20:55 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy [email protected]
2004-09-30 16:47 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 16:52 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
@ 2004-09-30 17:07 ` Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 17:12 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Tom Lane <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 17:49 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Josh Berkus @ 2004-09-30 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-www
Marc,
> I kinda read it as a 'form letter' response ...
Is it possible that our lists-to-newsgroups gateway is broken? Before I
start getting pushy with Google, I want to make sure it's not our problem.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
2004-09-29 07:32 Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-09-29 20:55 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy [email protected]
2004-09-30 16:47 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 16:52 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 17:07 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
@ 2004-09-30 17:12 ` Tom Lane <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 17:42 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2004-09-30 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; +Cc: Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>; pgsql-www
Josh Berkus <[email protected]> writes:
> Is it possible that our lists-to-newsgroups gateway is broken? Before I
> start getting pushy with Google, I want to make sure it's not our problem.
No, if you visit say
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=comp.databases.postgresql.hacke...
it says very clearly "This group is no longer archived". They did cut
us off, for reasons they have not made clear.
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
2004-09-29 07:32 Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-09-29 20:55 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy [email protected]
2004-09-30 16:47 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 16:52 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 17:07 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 17:12 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Tom Lane <[email protected]>
@ 2004-09-30 17:42 ` Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Josh Berkus @ 2004-09-30 17:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>; +Cc: Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>; pgsql-www
Tom,
> No, if you visit say
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=comp.databases.pos
>tgresql.hackers
>
> it says very clearly "This group is no longer archived". They did cut
> us off, for reasons they have not made clear.
Certainly. But one of the reasons they could cut us off is "inactivity",
which would certainly occur if mailing list messages were no longer going
through to the newsgroups.
Can someone check on NNTP to see that stuff is still gettng posted to the
newsgroups?
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
2004-09-29 07:32 Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-09-29 20:55 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy [email protected]
2004-09-30 16:47 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 16:52 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 17:07 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
@ 2004-09-30 17:49 ` Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 17:56 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 18:01 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Tom Lane <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Marc G. Fournier @ 2004-09-30 17:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; +Cc: Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>; pgsql-www
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Marc,
>
>> I kinda read it as a 'form letter' response ...
>
> Is it possible that our lists-to-newsgroups gateway is broken? Before I
> start getting pushy with Google, I want to make sure it's not our problem.
Its actually redundant ... Oliver, in France, is running one also, same
hierarchy, same message-ids, so that there are no duplicates .. so both
would have to be broken at the same time ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [email protected] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
2004-09-29 07:32 Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-09-29 20:55 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy [email protected]
2004-09-30 16:47 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 16:52 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 17:07 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 17:49 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
@ 2004-09-30 17:56 ` Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Josh Berkus @ 2004-09-30 17:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-www
People:
E-mail sent to Google. If we don't see any action in a couple of days, then
I'll ask all of our community to e-mail them with requests to fix it. That
will certainly get their attention.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
2004-09-29 07:32 Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-09-29 20:55 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy [email protected]
2004-09-30 16:47 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 16:52 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 17:07 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 17:49 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
@ 2004-09-30 18:01 ` Tom Lane <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 18:06 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2004-09-30 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>; +Cc: Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; pgsql-www
"Marc G. Fournier" <[email protected]> writes:
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Is it possible that our lists-to-newsgroups gateway is broken? Before I
>> start getting pushy with Google, I want to make sure it's not our problem.
> Its actually redundant ... Oliver, in France, is running one also, same
> hierarchy, same message-ids, so that there are no duplicates .. so both
> would have to be broken at the same time ...
I don't believe that they really cut us off for inactivity, because they
have postings up through 16 Sept and we know that the cutoff occurred
then or within a very few days afterwards.
A different semi-legitimate reason for a cutoff is that, so far as I
know, the comp.databases.postgresql newsgroups never went through the
formal vote process to be recognized as legitimate mainstream
newsgroups. Back when I was a netnews administrator for CMU, it was
common practice to refuse to carry groups that hadn't passed such a
vote, and I imagine it still is. I haven't heard that Google is getting
strict about this (and they sure didn't mention it in their comments)
but if they are then we don't have much of a leg to stand on.
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
2004-09-29 07:32 Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-09-29 20:55 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy [email protected]
2004-09-30 16:47 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 16:52 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 17:07 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 17:49 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 18:01 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Tom Lane <[email protected]>
@ 2004-09-30 18:06 ` Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 18:43 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Tom Lane <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Josh Berkus @ 2004-09-30 18:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>; +Cc: Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>; pgsql-www
Tom,
> A different semi-legitimate reason for a cutoff is that, so far as I
> know, the comp.databases.postgresql newsgroups never went through the
> formal vote process to be recognized as legitimate mainstream
> newsgroups. Back when I was a netnews administrator for CMU, it was
> common practice to refuse to carry groups that hadn't passed such a
> vote, and I imagine it still is. I haven't heard that Google is getting
> strict about this (and they sure didn't mention it in their comments)
> but if they are then we don't have much of a leg to stand on.
If that's the case, then, they should inform us and we can start a campaign.
But right now we're getting the brushoff and we need to get their attention.
BTW, how would we go about organizing a legitimacy vote? Who votes on this?
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
2004-09-29 07:32 Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-09-29 20:55 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy [email protected]
2004-09-30 16:47 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 16:52 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 17:07 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 17:49 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 18:01 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Tom Lane <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 18:06 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
@ 2004-09-30 18:43 ` Tom Lane <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2004-09-30 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: [email protected]; +Cc: Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>; pgsql-www
Josh Berkus <[email protected]> writes:
> BTW, how would we go about organizing a legitimacy vote? Who votes on this?
I haven't paid attention to that stuff in nigh ten years, but there
is/was a very well-defined procedure to go through to propose a new
recognized newsgroup, and at least one newsgroup that deals solely in
processing such proposals. Google for "newgroup vote" or some such and
you'll probably find all the details you could want.
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
2004-09-29 07:32 Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-09-29 20:55 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy [email protected]
@ 2004-09-30 17:54 ` Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Josh Berkus @ 2004-09-30 17:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: [email protected]; +Cc: Dave Page <[email protected]>; pgsql-www
Google Staff:
Our webmaster has brought it to my attention that you have stopped archiving
comp.databases.postgresql.* for no apparent reason. The staff he
previously spoke with claimed that the stoppage was due to "duplication or
inactivity", but:
1) There are no other sources for the PostgreSQL newsgroups anywhere on
Google;
2) All of these lists are *extremely* active: for example,
comp.databases.postgresql.hackers has had about 140 posts this week.
We have also checked to see if there might be some problem with the
perpetuation of the postgresql newsgroups but our members are unable to
discover any.
The e-mail exchanged with out webmaster implies that the Google staff is not
interested in this problem and has no interest in doing anything to correct
it. I am sure that this must be a mistaken impression; could you please
respond with some indication of how soon this is likely to be resolved?
--
--Josh Berkus
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Project Core Team
www.postgresql.org
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
2004-09-29 07:32 Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-09-29 20:55 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy [email protected]
@ 2004-10-02 23:22 ` Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Josh Berkus @ 2004-10-02 23:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: [email protected]; +Cc: pgsql-www
Google Team,
Thank you for restoring archiving of the PostgreSQL newsgroups. Our many
users who rely on Google Groups to search for answers are delighted to have
it back.
Thanks!
--
--Josh Berkus
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Project Core Team
www.postgresql.org
(all opinions expressed are my own; I do not speak
for the Project unless specifically noted.)
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
@ 2004-09-30 19:06 Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 20:36 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Dave Page @ 2004-09-30 19:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; pgsql-www
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Josh Berkus
> Sent: 30 September 2004 17:47
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] [#14748606]
> comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
>
> Dave,
>
> > Thank you for the information you provided in your reply. We really
> > appreciate your feedback, and we'll keep it in mind as we work to
> > improve Google Groups.
>
> This looks to me like they cut us off for ulterior reasons
> and are avoiding
> the topic. Does it look that way to anyone else?
Yes. I'm just not sure whether it's because we're a database project, or
because they're trying to wind down groups.google which I can't imagine
makes them a whole lot of cash. Any other theories?
> Is it time to hunt up members of the community who have
> contacts at google, or start an e-mail petition drive?
Both I say.
Regards, Dave.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
2004-09-30 19:06 Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Dave Page <[email protected]>
@ 2004-09-30 20:36 ` Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 23:14 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Bruce Momjian @ 2004-09-30 20:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Page <[email protected]>; +Cc: Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; pgsql-www
Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected]
> > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Josh Berkus
> > Sent: 30 September 2004 17:47
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] [#14748606]
> > comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > > Thank you for the information you provided in your reply. We really
> > > appreciate your feedback, and we'll keep it in mind as we work to
> > > improve Google Groups.
> >
> > This looks to me like they cut us off for ulterior reasons
> > and are avoiding
> > the topic. Does it look that way to anyone else?
>
> Yes. I'm just not sure whether it's because we're a database project, or
> because they're trying to wind down groups.google which I can't imagine
> makes them a whole lot of cash. Any other theories?
I first thought maybe some commercial db doesn't want us on google, then
I thought it can't be activity, so it must be that the Usenet group is
mostly posted through the gateway and not actually posted to from
Usenet.
Gavin Sherry said they stopped archiving the linux kernel mailing lists
this month too so it might be a new policy of only archiving groups that
are primarily posted to from Usetnet.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[email protected] | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
2004-09-30 19:06 Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 20:36 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
@ 2004-09-30 23:14 ` Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Marc G. Fournier @ 2004-09-30 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>; +Cc: Dave Page <[email protected]>; Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; pgsql-www
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [email protected]
>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Josh Berkus
>>> Sent: 30 September 2004 17:47
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] [#14748606]
>>> comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
>>>
>>> Dave,
>>>
>>>> Thank you for the information you provided in your reply. We really
>>>> appreciate your feedback, and we'll keep it in mind as we work to
>>>> improve Google Groups.
>>>
>>> This looks to me like they cut us off for ulterior reasons
>>> and are avoiding
>>> the topic. Does it look that way to anyone else?
>>
>> Yes. I'm just not sure whether it's because we're a database project, or
>> because they're trying to wind down groups.google which I can't imagine
>> makes them a whole lot of cash. Any other theories?
>
> I first thought maybe some commercial db doesn't want us on google, then
> I thought it can't be activity, so it must be that the Usenet group is
> mostly posted through the gateway and not actually posted to from
> Usenet.
You know all of those delay'd postings that I approve? They are all from
the gateway going from news->mail :) So, figure several hundred a week
*easily* ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [email protected] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
@ 2004-09-30 19:11 Dave Page <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Dave Page @ 2004-09-30 19:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: [email protected]; pgsql-www
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Josh Berkus
> Sent: 30 September 2004 18:56
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] [#14748606]
> comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
>
> People:
>
> E-mail sent to Google. If we don't see any action in a
> couple of days, then
> I'll ask all of our community to e-mail them with requests to
> fix it. That
> will certainly get their attention.
Hi Josh,
In my first response from them, they did suggest that high demand was
one way to get the groups reinstated. And in their defence, they did
answer both times within 2 working days - the second time I even got a
different form letter!
Regards, Dave.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
@ 2004-09-30 19:15 Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 19:21 ` Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Tom Lane <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Dave Page @ 2004-09-30 19:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>; [email protected]; +Cc: Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>; pgsql-www
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> Sent: 30 September 2004 19:44
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: Marc G. Fournier; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] [#14748606]
> comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
>
> Josh Berkus <[email protected]> writes:
> > BTW, how would we go about organizing a legitimacy vote?
> Who votes on this?
>
> I haven't paid attention to that stuff in nigh ten years, but
> there is/was a very well-defined procedure to go through to
> propose a new recognized newsgroup, and at least one
> newsgroup that deals solely in processing such proposals.
> Google for "newgroup vote" or some such and you'll probably
> find all the details you could want.
Details at
http://www.cs.uu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1.ht
ml
I have no info on how up to date that is.
Regards, Dave.
P.S. I heard a rumour some time ago that you were once part of the
legendary Usenet Cabal Tom. Is that something you'd care to confirm or
deny? :-)
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy
2004-09-30 19:15 Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Dave Page <[email protected]>
@ 2004-09-30 19:21 ` Tom Lane <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2004-09-30 19:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Page <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected]; Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>; pgsql-www
"Dave Page" <[email protected]> writes:
> P.S. I heard a rumour some time ago that you were once part of the
> legendary Usenet Cabal Tom. Is that something you'd care to confirm or
> deny? :-)
Not me. I was newsadmin for cs.cmu.edu for a few years, but that didn't
equate to having any actual political power ...
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 20+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-10-02 23:22 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-09-29 07:32 Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-09-29 20:55 ` [email protected]
2004-09-30 16:47 ` Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 16:52 ` Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 17:07 ` Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 17:12 ` Tom Lane <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 17:42 ` Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 17:49 ` Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 17:56 ` Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 18:01 ` Tom Lane <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 18:06 ` Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 18:43 ` Tom Lane <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 17:54 ` Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-10-02 23:22 ` Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 19:06 Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 20:36 ` Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 23:14 ` Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 19:11 Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 19:15 Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy Dave Page <[email protected]>
2004-09-30 19:21 ` Tom Lane <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox