> Well, there's no free lunch. If we have a whole lot of "small" lists
> there are going to be two big downsides: fewer people reading each list
> (hence fewer answers), and many more arguably-misclassified postings,
> thus diluting the theoretical targetedness of the lists.
You're missing my point. I'm saying that people *are* gettings answers
on the -sql and -performance lists, that those lists are very busy, and
that consolidating them with other lists would just drive people away
due to traffic volume. And that nobody who is suggesting list
consolidation has presented any evidence to the contrary other than a
*single* missed bug report. Data is not the plural of anecdote.
I'm *not* suggesting that we create more lists just because, either.
Again, this whole discussion is a solution in search of a problem.
Someone wants to mess with our list organization just because they are
bored. If they're that bored, I understand that the web team could use
some help. Or they could review patches.
We do not have a problem. The lists are fine the way they are.
-- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
