On 06/20/2014 08:39 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> I think in the end this ties down to how far we want or should go in
> providing mailinglist services in general to projects in the wider
> postgresql.org ecosystem and if "yes" in what way...
So when WWW decided to de-support pgFoundry, one of the services which
pgFoundry was supplying which was discontinued is having mailing lists
for satellite projects for PostgreSQL. At the time we made that
decision, several people on this list gave the impression that mailing
lists would be created more liberally in the future in order to pick up
the slack.
However, that is not what has happened. Every time someone has
requested a new mailing list here they've had to extensively justify
their request for the list. The impression I get is that there's a lot
of support infrastructure associated with each list for the infra team,
which is fueling their objections. However, the result is that people
who were enthusiastic about doing something with PostgreSQL get
frustrated and discouraged, or go off and set up a forum on some website
not even associated with postgresql.org, making it hard/impossible for
users to find.
At this point, I have active lists still running on Marc's pgfoundry
because I've been discouraged from moving them over.
If adding new lists to majordomo is painful (and I can imagine it might
be), can we please set up a low-SLA mailman instance somewhere on
postgresql.org so that every list request doesn't have to turn into an
argument? If this is a PITA for the infra team, can we ask OSUOSL for one?
> Anyway for this request I still dont think it is a good idea but given
> nobody else seems to share my concerns I wont object further.
Personally, I have enough trust in Craig/Andres that if they say they
need a list, they need a list. And if the list doesn't get used, it'll
be shut down.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com