Re: Idea for a secondary list server

On 02/24/2015 12:05 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> On 02/24/2015 12:57 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>>> 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.
>> I agree entirely.
>
> So the alternative is that we'll be running folks through the gauntlet
> of justification whenever they ask for a list, and requiring them to
> prove the popularity of their project/group/etc. before allocating them
> one -- something which is hard to do without having a list in the first
> place.

That isn't the alternative. That is the reality. There is a reason that 
WhatcomPUG exists outside of .Org. It is because .Org made it hard to be 
a part of it and I am positive other PUGS have had the same 
impression/reaction.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/  503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, @cmdpromptinc
"If we send our children to Caesar for their education, we should             not be surprised when they come back as
Romans."