Re: Policy for expiring lists WAS: Idea for a secondary list server

Josh,

* Josh Berkus (josh@agliodbs.com) wrote:
> On 02/28/2015 08:52 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> >> For example, I'd like to terminate the SFPUG list.  Given that we have
> >> Meetup, RSS *and* Twitter, we really don't need it anymore.  However,
> >> I'm reluctant to delete the archives.
> >
> > uh isnt that actually _the_ prime example why we dont actually need more
> > lists? If a PUG as large and successful as SFPUG does not need one
> > because there are better ways to coordinate a PUG and make it successful
> > why are we not promoting those?
>
> No, it's not.  We need the mailing lists for PUGs which are not
> successful *yet*.    The reason that SFPUG has outgrown its mailing list
> is that we have other resources:
>
> * Meetup.com, paid for by David for $140/year.
> * Website/RSS feed, paid for by me, $75/year.
> * Twitter acct., registered by me.
>
> Prior to having those things and getting big, our mailing list was
> *essential* for the success of SFPUG; we used nothing else for the first
> 6 years we existed.  There's also the fact that most of our local folks
> are very active on the main lists (-hackers, general, etc.) which is the
> reason why we don't see a lot of discussion and peer-to-peer help on
> SFPUG anymore.

Having people use the main lists is *exactly* what we want to have
happen, in my view.  This notion that the PUG lists are good for peer to
peer help is flawed, in my view.  Further, I think it's flawed to
encourage people to think of mailing lists as making something
"legitimate."  It's not the mailing list but rather the listing on
postgresql.org, in my view at least, that makes something legitimate.
The large conferences which run each year are announced and linked to
from pginfra, but they don't have @postgresql.org mailing lists and the
lists they do have are for announcements, not for peer-to-peer help.

> This is not a solution for new PUGs because:
>
> * We're not proposing to pay for Meetup accounts for every new PUG.

I don't get why not.  As I understand it, there are resources available
for people who run PUGs from .US and possibly SPI and $140/yr is not
terribly much.  Further, that's for an organizer and one organizer can
create multiple meetup groups, as I understand it- perhaps have someone
who is already an organizer formally support creating meetup groups for
PUGs?  Maybe that's something that .US could help with?

We might also ask Meetup if they'd contribute to PG in some way to
address that cost..

> * Meetup is only used in certain cities in the US/Canada, and is unknown
> elsewhere.  It's also not multilingual.

I agree that's not ideal but, where it makes sense to use it, it's a
great resource.

> * Some people hate Meetup because it's proprietary and external.

Oh well.

> * We're not proposing to offer website space to all new PUGs.

Web space wouldn't help with this.

> * Twitter is not a substitute for other ways of contact.

This I can agree with, there needs to be something other than twitter.

> Now, if you said to me "Josh, I think we should be offering those other
> things *instead of* mailing lists to new PUGs," then I think that would
> be a possibility worth discussing.  I didn't think the infra team was
> eager to offer hosted websites for PUGs again, though.

Josh, we're not going to be able to provide something like meetup
without a heck of a lot of development resources.  If you're offering to
build an OSS meetup replacement then we can certainly talk about hosting
an instance for PUGs.

Just providing web space wouldn't be any more useful than the mailing
lists we provide now are to new PUGs, imv.

> Also, I'm only suggesting that we could terminate the SFPUG list *if* I
> can re-create the list later if something happens to Meetup.  If I can't
> get the list back once it's gone (which has been the de-facto policy in
> the past), then I'm going to fight to hold onto it.

That's why we can't make progress here- lists can never go away.

> Further, we're not just talking about PUGs; people will also request new
> mailing lists for other purposes, such as specific development projects.
>  For example, I could see that a pgsql-fpga@ or mailing list could be
> useful at this point, except that the involved developers haven't asked
> for it.  Certainly if such a list were requested, we wouldn't tell them
> to use Meetup.

Let's try to keep the discussion to one topic at a time here.

> And ... to be blunt, I really feel like a bunch of folks on this thread
> are discussing this in bad faith; that is, they're looking for any
> excuse at all to say no to new mailing lists, regardless of other
> considerations.  If that's the case, then please say so now, we can see
> if this is a majority of the infra team, and if it is, I'll stop wasting
> my time.

It's not bad faith, it's looking at the current situation and wondering
why in the world it makes sense to add more to what has become a
wasteland.

> This is *exactly* what I'm talking about.  The reason the infra team
> runs up against a wall on terminating lists is that list members know
> that once a list has been killed, the infra team will throw every
> possible sandbag in the way of reviving it.   If you guys were more
> flexible about reviving lists, then the owners would be more flexible
> about terminating them.  You're digging your own hole, here.

Yeah, I couldn't care less about the DCPUG archive.  It's more likely a
source of misinformation (as compared to what's current) than it is some
highly valuable resource of information.
Thanks,
    Stephen