Subject: [email-masked]

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:18:33 -0800

Hey guys,

I was talking with the organizers of AZ Pug today (copied on this email) 
and they were interested in getting an [email-masked] list. This 
is an almost two year old PUG. Can we get them taken care of?

JD
-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC
@cmdpromptinc - 509-416-6579

-- 
Sent via pgsql-www mailing list ([email-masked])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-www

---

From: Alvaro Herrera <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:32:38 -0300

Joshua D. Drake escribió:
> 
> Hey guys,
> 
> I was talking with the organizers of AZ Pug today (copied on this
> email) and they were interested in getting an [email-masked]
> list. This is an almost two year old PUG. Can we get them taken care
> of?

Uhm, so I take it AZ is Arizona.  I don't object to the idea, but I note
that AZ is also the 2-letter country code for Azerbaijan.  IIRC somebody
proposed using airport codes for PUG names to avoid conflicts; that
would make it PHXPUG I think, which sounds pretty horrible to me.  I
admit we don't hear much from Azeri users, so maybe AZPUG is okay?

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:36:50 -0800

> admit we don't hear much from Azeri users, so maybe AZPUG is okay?

Wow you learn something new everyday. I think that using PHXPUG is a bad 
idea, there is more than one airport in AZ. I vote AZPUG.

JD

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:04:51 -0800

>> admit we don't hear much from Azeri users, so maybe AZPUG is okay?

Yeah, I think an Azerbaijan user group is unlikely, at best.

Mind you, if the list needs modification *anyway*, is there something
wrong with using [email-masked]?

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:19:01 -0800

> wrong with using [email-masked]?

That seems a reasonable compromise.

JD

---

From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:00:32 +0100

> That seems a reasonable compromise.

yeah - I don't think we should use azpug@ for arizona and shadow an
entire country so I would thing that arizonapug@ seems like a sensible
alternative

Stefan

---

From: Alvaro Herrera <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 18:10:39 -0300

> entire country so I would thing that arizonapug@ seems like a sensible

And how about US-Ariz-pug?  The ISO code for Arizona is US-AZ; we could
do that too.

I want something that has gotten at least *some* discussion, thought,
and agreement, not the first thing that crosses our minds.  It's a name
that we're going to be stuck with for a long time, because it's damn
hard to change list names.  I note none of the guys from AZ have
actually said anything.

---

From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:14:20 +0100

> And how about US-Ariz-pug?  The ISO code for Arizona is US-AZ; we could

no problem with that one either - mostly concerned about polluting the
main ISO country code "space" further (as in azpug@)

> hard to change list names.  I note none of the guys from AZ have

yeah - getting feedback from the actual "users" of that list would be
much appreciated

Stefan

---

From: Josh Kupershmidt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 15:13:49 -0700

> yeah - getting feedback from the actual "users" of that list would be

Well, I liked "azpug@" myself, since we refer to ourselves as the AZ
PUG. If that's no good, I liked "ArizonaPUG@" as a close second.

Josh