From: Sean Chittenden <sean@...>
Date: 2002-10-02T12:17:53+09:00
Subject: Re: ruby-talk separation, part II

> > > [James:]
> > > I believe there is already a question of whether such lists should
> > > be hosted by ruby-lang.org.  I would suggest that broad-topic lists
> > > remain under the auspices of the ruby-lang.org umbrella, while
> > > independent lists be reserved for application-specific topics (e.g.,
> > > the DRuby or REXML lists).
> >
> > Having the lists, regardless of where they are, is more important
> > than not having the lists.  Transfering the
> > domains/lists/subscribers is easy, building the communties and
> > diversifying the traffic is what's important.  Getting the proof
> > of concenpt done is important since there seems to be some doubt
> > as to its need.  -sc
> 
> You are correct, but heed the warning of community fragmentation
> caused by disorganised lists.  I know you want to "organise" the
> lists, but if you do it in haste, as a
> proof-of-concept-that-becomes-production, then they will in fact be
> disorganised.

Point taken.  Offline I've gotten very positive feedback for taking
the initiative and championing the topic... the reception hasn't been
quite as warm on -talk, but still, point is taken.

> My kind of organisation:
>  - all lists under same umbrella (logical; surely bandwidth can be
>    appropriated without changing names?)
>  - single web page to manage all subscriptions
>  - consistent archive/search interface
> 
> I personally would like to see many (15? 20?) lists as described in
> other posts, subscribe to them all, have them go to separate
> folders, and then manage the subscriptions to prevent email
> overflow.
>
> Being able to do this would achieve a great deal of organisation
> while maintaining the stength of community.

::nods:: Toss me an email in private if you have ideas on how to do
this.  I'm thinking mailman/majordomo needs a competitor from the Ruby
arena.  I know seattle.rb has something in the works, but I don't know
what its state is.

> Your points about deregulation etc. are well made, but we are
> talking about a community here, not a set of competing profit-making
> organisations.  A little planning (and only a little) will serve us
> well.

I was wondering when someone would call a fault in those statements.
:)  -sc

-- 
Sean Chittenden