On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 15:04 -0400, Warren Togami wrote: > Christopher Blizzard wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 14:05 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > >> > >> *shrug* I'll give this a +1. Although if discussion goes to > >> 'fedora-devel' > >> one wonders what the usefulness of fedora-maintainers will start to > >> be? > >> > > > > Yeah, I don't get this. fedora-maintainers is pretty useful - high > > signal, low crap. The proper reaction to things like this is almost > > never _another_ mailing list. > > > > It is pretty useful if you have the time to follow all the posts and > read everything. It is wrong-minded however to expect everyone with > lesser commitments to be able to read and follow everything on a busy > discussion list. For them, they could opt to follow minimally > fedora-devel-announce. > > I'm half-decided on if fedora-devel-announce then kill > fedora-maintainers. fedora-maintainers has the benefit of having a > significantly better signal to noise ratio than fedora-devel-list. > There is however a detriment to the redundancy. > > If folks were willing to be more MILITANT AND CONSISTENT in enforcing > the "devel only" rules for fedora-devel-list I might be happier about > killing fedora-maintainers. But consistent enforcement has proven to be > impossible to maintain in the past. > > We should talk about this issues in tomorrow's FESCO meeting. I've added it to the schedule. /B -- Brian Pepple <bpepple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
