Re: Should we propose comp.databases.design?

"Alan" <not.me_at_uhuh.rcn.com> wrote:

>"Kenneth Downs" <firstinit.lastname_at_lastnameplusfam.net> wrote in message
>news:7vdc62-ro2.ln1_at_pluto.downsfam.net...
>> Laconic2 mentioned at one point that he would consider this a useful
>group.
>> Personally, I believe much of my own discussion would go there if it
>> existed.
>>
>> I have looked into this somewhat and it is fairly easy to propose a group.
>> But before doing so, I would ask out loud here if anybody would bother
>> voting for it. If there is any meaningful interest, the next move would
>be
>> to ask the same question in the broader group comp.databases. If it gains
>> momentum there, I would be willing to do the work of being the "advocate"
>> to get the group through the process.
>>
>> Any opinions?

>I have no strong objection, just a concern that there will be even more
>crossposting than there is now.

     Ditto.

     We may get posters who want the physical design instead of the logical design. this might increase the duplication considerably.

     However, given a reasonable proposed charter, I would vote for the group to be created.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:

     I have preferences.
     You have biases.
     He/She has prejudices.