Obviously, there cannot be 21 postgresql groups in the comp.* hierarchy.
Many of the 21 are not used that often, and would not be of much popularity
to those on usenet.

I did a check on news.postgresql.org to see which newsgroups are the most
popular and also the ones which cover the relevant postgresql topics. Most
of the postgresql topics and traffic are represented in these four
newsgroups:

comp.databases.postgresql.admin
comp.databases.postgresql.general
comp.databases.postgresql.hackers
comp.databases.postgresql.sql

These are the four newsgroups that will be in the next version of the RFD.
The newsgroups will be unmoderated, although the posters will be moderated
at the gateway side, with those who are subscribed will see their posts
make it to usenet and the mailing list.

A good way to think of this is that the subscription is a fast way to get
through moderation. You have the option of not getting any emails.

For those on the news.groups who are not familiar with postgresql, join
news.postgresql.org and see the groups list. You will see that making
these four groups proper members of the big 8 would solve most of the
usenet problems since the other groups do not have nearly the same amount
of traffic.

As a side note ... if/when the CFV is called and those 4 are
approved/rejected, that will not change what is available on
news.postgresql.org, it will only improve the propogation of those 4
specific groups so that more servers around the world carry them ...

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Mike Cox wrote:

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy (AT) hub (DOT) org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

The new proposal should have all of the lists. I am amazed that an
unknown interloper is trying to dictate which lists should be voted on.
I am affiliated with a network of over 60 PostgreSql users/developers,
and I will e-mail each one of those people a ballot. If your next
proposal does not contain every single one of the lists, you can expect
essentially all of those 60 people to vote no. I will campaign
passionately against your proposal if you leave out even one of the
lists. Do the right thing if you are sincerely trying to help the list
subscribers.

This is my last post to news.groups about this.

The new proposal should have all of the lists. I am amazed that an
unknown interloper is trying to dictate which lists should be voted on.
I am affiliated with a network of over 60 PostgreSql users/developers,
and I will e-mail each one of those people a ballot. If your next
proposal does not contain every single one of the lists, you can expect
essentially all of those 60 people to vote no. I will campaign
passionately against your proposal if you leave out even one of the
lists. Do the right thing if you are sincerely trying to help the list
subscribers.

This is my last post to news.groups about this.

Woodchuck Bill wrote:

Exactly. The groups that are relevant to most (determined by # of posts)
will get wider exposure ensuring that more people will take up postgresql
or have better access to help.

The ones not on the list to be made into the big 8 will always be accessible
from the news.postgresql.org server.

Also, please, if I've missed an important group you think SHOULD be in the
big 8, please let me know in this thread.

Brian Mailman wrote:

Agreed. The person should email all the people in his network to visit
news.groups to find out how to obtain an official ballot legally.

scrappy (AT) postgresql (DOT) org ("Marc G. Fournier") wrote in
news:20041109200846.K31970 (AT) ganymede (DOT) hub.org:

[reply from list owner crossposted to news.groups]

pvaurio (AT) solaris (DOT) polarhome.com wrote:

You should not do that.

Those ballots will be invalidated since only the official ballots that
are posted or obtained directly from the votetaker are going to be counted.

B/

In article <2vcp1nF2k0ftbU1 (AT) uni-berlin (DOT) de>,
Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

How about just comp.databases.postgresql or (shudder)
comp.databases.postgresql.misc?

-Mike

In news.groups, Klaas <spampit (AT) klaas (DOT) ca> writes:
In this particular situation, I think .general may actually be a better
name than either of those (not to mention matching the name of the mailing
list, as I recall). I know there's only one other .general group in the
Big Eight, but there are oodles of prior examples in other hierarchies.

--
Russ Allbery (rra (AT) stanford (DOT) edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>