From: Sean Chittenden <sean@...>
Date: 2002-10-02T05:42:39+09:00
Subject: Re: ruby-talk separation, part II

> Those are good additions. We may however want to consolidate and keep
> the list count under 30. :)

Heh, I'd be inclined to have more, but there's truth to what you say.

> > PS If in one weeks time I haven't heard of any objections, I will
> > wholesale create all of these lists above plus any other suggested
> > lists and toss them on rubynet.org along with an updated site and
> > links pointing to all of the lists, descriptions of the lists, and
> > archives.  Searchable archives I'll be able to have up in a week
> > or so after that.
> 
> Personally, I would be very hesitant to subscribe to a non ruby-lang
> authorized list. I would much rather see this driven by ruby-lang.
> I feel the longevity would be more certain and searching/archiving would
> be more consistent.

But you wouldn't to a CPAN.org site if you were a perl user.  :) Like
I said though, having the lists exist is more important than where
they exist.  It's not like this is a community coup or something.  :)
There's a decided vacuum in the list diversification realm for Ruby
and I'm addressing it.  It's a free market Internet in practice!  When
there's a need/vacuum/void, fill the need/vacuum/void.  Deregulation
at a later date is always painful (see California's former power
situation, the airlines industry, or any price controlled industry for
that matter).  -sc

-- 
Sean Chittenden