Since we have the discussion going, someone mentioned that the group name should be comp.databases.postgresql. I think this is a good name and I'd like to see what everyone thinks of it.
There is also the issue of the charter. I would like to get some feed back on what the best charter could be for the revision of the RFD so it is a strong as possible. So the things I'm seeing that people are having the most problems with the current RFD are: 1. The name. They want a better name, and also one that doesn't clash with the "bogus" (usenet terminology, no disrespect intended) comp.databases.postgresql.general mailing-list newsgroup gateway name space. Someone suggested "comp.databases.postgresql". I think that is a good one, and if others agree (please respond in this thread), then that will be one of the changes in the next version of the RFD. 2. The charter. A lot of people expressed feedback that my default charter wasnt very good. I'll agree with them as it was provided as a starting point. I would like the community to craft the charter and the one they decide upon, I will include in the next RFD. If there is anything else that would make the next postgresql RFD stronger, and better, please discuss it in this thread. I also think that a postgresql group should definately be in the big eight under the comp.* hierarchy. The (newly created) alt group should not be a primary place for discussion because it is not guarenteed that all "proper" usenet servers will carry it, as they would if it were in the big 8. There is also a certain air of respectablity to being in the big 8. It means that it has gone through a process and has passed scrutiny. Then people would find postgresql next to oracle in the comp.databases.* hierarchy! ;-) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match