Message-ID: <47E5270E.9030303@hagander.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:34:38 +0100
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
CC: Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>,
	Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>, pgsql-www@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Time to get infrastructure team-based
References: <200803221448.m2MEm9G05256@momjian.us>
In-Reply-To: <200803221448.m2MEm9G05256@momjian.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>>>  > I can, but it can be changed so that I cannot in seconds. We *need*
>>>  > agreement otherwise this could get extremely messy. Has anyone from
>>>  > -core other than me actually asked yet?
>>>
>>>  No, but it seems like a waste of time to even try.
>>>
>>>  One idea is to set up the duplicate infrastructure with a domain in
>>>  place, and if the domain change gets blocked, we just switch to the new
>>>  domain name.
>> I don't even want to think about the ramifications of doing that.
> 
> Well, then we will forever be hostage to the will of the domain name
> holder.

Yes, but that would be equally true of the holder of the new domain. It 
would, however, make sense to have the domain reassigned to 
postgresql.org - it's currently owned by pgsql,inc. But you still need a 
contacts on the domain that are individuals, who will always have at 
least a theoretical ability to "hold hostage".

But this is really a different question from the other one. I'm not 
saying both shouldn't be fixed, I'm just saying it's different things.

//Magnus