Re: Idea for a secondary list server

* Josh Berkus (josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com) 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.

I'm missing the part where this is a downside.

> Alternatively, having a secondary list server with external
> infrastructure support and an automated termination policy for idle
> lists would give us an "incubator" area where people could prove the
> viability of their focused sub-communities ... or not. This would allow
> us to NOT spend time arguing on this list over whether a specific group
> deserved a list or not.

If we had a policy for idle lists then we'd be much better off. That's
a completely independent consideration from where the lists are hosted.

I'd encourage you to propose such a policy. Once that's been hammered
out, we'll clean up the existing lists and address any requests for new
ones.

Thanks!

Stephen