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

* Joshua D. Drake (jd@commandprompt.com) wrote:
> > If .US can support *specifically meetup*, then
> >I think we could get a lot farther along the path of having regular
> >PUGs because meetup is what people actually use and the meetup based
> >PUGs, generally speaking, do quite well.
>
> My point was, I doubt I could convince the board to expense the
> money when we have GAPPS including Groups and G+ and Events etc...
> all for free via our 501c3 account with Google.

Can the PUGs make use of that?  I use meetup as an example, but if
Google provides something comparable, that all the PUGs could use..

> >PUGs that just have a mailing
> >list clearly do *not* work out well.  If all it took was a mailing list
> >then why do we have a bunch of defunct ones?  Let's look at the actual
> >evidence instead of what we'd like to have happen.
>
> I don't disagree that there are a lot of quiet lists (I also agree
> that dumping lists should be something that should be done). I only
> argue that creating a list and seeing it if will thrive takes very
> little energy and creates a more open environment for the community.

Emailing to a list and getting no response does *not* make for a more
open environment, and that's the experience that most users who post to
the PUGs has.

> >>>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.
> >>
> >>A mailing list + the ability for there to be a PUGS "event" listing
> >>would pretty much provide everything a PUG needs.
> >
> >I look forward to this OSS-implementation of meetup.
>
> We already have it? We have events on the website plus mailing list
> capability. O.k. granted, we may want a different PUGs event space,
> I am not sure but that is definitely a topic for a different thread.

What we have is not meetup.  Perhaps you can convince Magnus or someone
to hobble together something which is at least closer to meetup but it's
no small task and creating more lists isn't going to change that.

> >>The primary topic is a secondary list server because .org is
> >>difficult to work with when it comes to mailing lists. I think it is
> >>pretty spot on to mention we have also wanted other types of lists.
> >
> >The pginfra team is *also* part of the advocacy and various other teams,
> >including core.  Please do not presume that the discussion carried on
> >here by members of infrastructure are only from the infrastructure or
> >resources standpoint.  It is not.
>
> I have no idea to your point here as it has nothing to do with what I said.

To attempt to clarify: your comment was that .org is difficult to work
with and, at least to me, it came across as "the sysadmins who run .org
don't want to be bothered with creating lists for our worthy users".

Perhaps you intended ".org" as "everyone involved" which would be
accurate, I suppose, but I don't think it's unreasonable to look at
the history of these lists and question why it makes sense to create
more as there's no reason to expect anything different to happen with
them.

Having a curated list of active PUGs (where "active" is at least one
meeting every other month, in my view..) and links to information about
them would be good, but mailing lists are not that.  Seeing as how no
one is interested in even reviewing the current list (the first three
links, to my eyes anyway, appear to all be to defunct PUGs..), I'd say
we have a bigger problem than not providing mailing lists.
Thanks,        Stephen