Josh,
* Josh Berkus (josh@agliodbs.com) wrote:
> Because of the difficulty in deleting lists, and because of the
> administrative overhead per list, the admins have to be fairly
> restrictive about adding lists to the @postgresql.org majordomo server.
Uh, the issue isn't that it's technically difficult to delete lists,
it's that it's nearly impossible *politically*. Using mailman isn't
going to fix that. Neither is the concern, when it comes to new tools,
etc, that those who would be most welcome and interested in such a topic
likely don't want to follow yet another mailing list and therefore would
prefer that the discussion happen using the existing lists.
Perhaps I've missed it, but a request to move an existing *active* list
from pgfoundry over to the @postgresql.org list system wouldn't suffer
from these concerns and would therefore, I expect, be implemented with
much less discussion.
Further, we could certainly host a mailman instance (actually, we
already run a number of them for various reasons); there's no reason to
involve OSL (who would be a much better resource for us by providing
hardware and hosting than by running a mailman instance, but they've
been less than anxious to do so and that does not encourage me to look
to them for other hosting).
> This would get us a secondary list server where we could create lists
> with fewer restrictions than our main listserv, without needing to add
> to the workload of the sysadmins or give untrusted people admin
> credentials. User support for this listserv could even be done by folks
> not in the current sysadmin pool (like me).
Having a slew of not used mailing lists would not be beneficial to the
community in general, in my opinion. Again, the issue is less about
the workload and more about the concern of having far more lists than
make any sense, 90+% of which are essentially dead.
Thanks,
Stephen
