Re: List traffic

On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 19:13 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> >> On Thu, 13 May 2010, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >>> We tried that with pgsql-hackers-win32 and iirc also
> >>> pgsql-hackers-pitr, and it was a big failure...
> >
> >> But, we are doing that now with pgsql-cluster-hackers and it looks to be
> >> working quite well from what I can see ...
> >
> > Is it? If they want someplace where the majority of hackers won't see
> > the discussion, maybe, but I am not sure that's not counterproductive.
> > Ideas developed by a small group may or may not survive exposure when
> > they reach this list.
>
> But that, IMHO, is the point of the smaller list ... it allows the group
> on that list to hash out their ideas, and, hopefully, deal with both
> arguments and counter arguments so that when presented to the larger
> group, they would then have a more cohesive arg for their ideas ...

Yes and no. After being on these lists for years, I have kind of been
moving toward the less is more. E.g; for main list traffic I can see the
need for two maybe three, that's it:

hackers
general
www

There is no reason why advocacy can't happen on general. Theoretically
www could be on hackers (although I do see the point of a separate
list).

A good MUA will deal with any overhead you have. I use Evolution and no
its not perfect but I have no problem managing the hordes of email I get
from this community.

Between labels, filters, watch lists and all the other goodies any MUA
will give you, I see no reason to have this all broken out anymore.

Joshua D. Drake

--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering