On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 01:36, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 12:15 -0400, Scot L. Harris wrote:
> > More lists are not going to resolve the afore mentioned issue.
>
> That's not entirely true.
> Yes, it won't solve the #1 complaint.
>
> But the #2 complaint I've noted is hardware selection and good server
> design being discussed on the list, among other "good practices" (e.g.,
> DNS, configuration management, etc...). Yes, it's not CentOS specific,
> but it's very CentOS relevant at the same time.
>
> We could _really_ use a "practices" list where these things could be
> discussed. Things that are not CentOS-specific, but heavily impact day-
> to-day deployments of CentOS where the CentOS userbase could be tapped.
> Things where another list might not be privy to the specifics of CentOS,
> and it because a catch-22 of software-specific v. CentOS-specific.
>
And there is where having additional lists usually hits a snag. People
post a question to the main list, get no response or an inadequate
response because those that have the answers only monitor the narrowed
lists due to the volume on the main list. Which leads directly to heavy
cross posting between mailing lists.
Trying to get people to use a good method of moving between lists is
doomed to failure. It will only lead to more postings trying to explain
to everyone how to move to another list and where to find the other
list. Same as on some lists that are full of posts trying to stop top
posting. :)
A separate practice lists would only appeal to those wanting to learn or
discuss best practices. Best practices should be part of any solution
provided. :)
