On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> 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.
Yes.
> 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.
Definitely.
> 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.
Not a huge amount of work. On the few occasions when it happens (I can
only actually think of a handful off-hand), it's typically because
there is significant overlap with another list, usually -hackers - and
as you know, we (core, and many other hackers) don't want lists that
overlap like that because many believe it's unnecessary and leads to
fragmented discussions.
> 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.
Can you give some examples of where that has happened please?
> At this point, I have active lists still running on Marc's pgfoundry
> because I've been discouraged from moving them over.
What are they?
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company