On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:48:16 +0000 Gregory Stark <stark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Right, I believe that is a valid argument. I think the real > > problem is that as a community we are not diligent in pushing > > people to the contextually specific lists we already have. > I would junk pgsql-sql, pgsql-ports, pgsql-performance, pgsql-novice > and redirect them all to pgsql-general and pgsql-docs, > pgsql-interfaces, and pgsql-bugs and send them all to -hackers. I could see ports going to hackers but bugs should be a bug tracker that copies hackers or bugs. I could see eliminating -sql, -novice and -interfaces. -performance is a little bit tougher because it may be a -hacker issue or an -admin issue. Docs should absolutely be separate in order to keep the noise level down. > I would also suggest junking pgsql-advocacy and pgsql-www as well. > They're mostly noise but they're noise we should be at least Sorry but that isn't going to happen and pgsql-www is nowhere near just noise. It is vital to the operation of the infrastructure. > peripherally aware of and not allow to slip under the radar because > it happens in a corner where not everyone is subscribed. That's what > happened recently on another topic and it seems to be what's > happening now with this certification stuff. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL SPI Liaison | SPI Director | PostgreSQL political pundit
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
