On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 11:56:37AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > OK, here's my proposal:
>
> The archival issue, together with the possibility of reactivation, is
> precisely what makes deletion difficult. What you seem to want is not
> to delete them, but to make them inactive, so that they can be activated
> later for whatever reason. Right?
>
> (Majordomo does have the feature to set lists as inactive, which means
> no email is distributed through them. They can later be reactivated.)
>
> Your comments on the usefulness of the SFPUG list are pretty surprising.
It's not surprising, but it is incomplete in a crucial detail.
> If SFPUG works well without a list, why do other PUGs need one?
It doesn't work without a list. The list provided via postgresql.org
has been supplanted by the list Meetup.com supplies as part of its
service.
While Meetup.com provides a feature set and an ease of use which to my
knowledge is unmatched in actual working systems, it is a USD 140
annual expense which I incur personally. I do so because I believe
it's important that SPFUG have that feature set, and because I can
afford it.
I do not think it is a good idea to force everybody else starting a
PUG incur such an expense.
> Maybe mailing lists for PUGs are a thing of the past -- perhaps we
> need to be thinking on getting the @postgres twitter account to
> re-tweet announcements posted by PUGs, or something like that, more
> suited to today's usage of comm channels rather than 1990's.
I think it would be great to supplement such lists with twitter, but
the lists are used for a good bit more than broadcast announcements.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
