On 03-Jun-22 10:01, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 2 Jun 2022, at 4:30, tom petch wrote:
How about
<list-name>-owner
making it clear in future to those who take on that responsibility
that that is part of their responsibility?
Yes, but the email address and/or name of the human(s) on the other end
of <list-name>-owner needs to be easily and publicly available.
Which is *not* a feature of mailman; I suspect that hiding the admin's
identity is probably intentional. However, I think that our table
of non-WG lists should identify the admins and responsible AD (either by
name or as <area>-ads@xxxxxxxx).
Another twist is that if the list in question is subsidiary to a WG, such
as a design team list, then it seems logical that the WG chairs should be
on the hook too.
Brian
