Re: Policy for expiring lists WAS: Idea for a secondary list server

Josh,

* Josh Berkus (josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com) wrote:
> Maybe my Google-Fu is insufficient. However, that begs a broader point:
> why are we intent on pushing stuff for the community off onto an
> external proprietary resource we don't control, and where it's not clear
> whether it's really associated with the project or not? If I proposed
> that we should stop maintaining git.postgresql.org and use Github
> instead, I know the answer I'd get.

Simply put- because we do not have a tool which we can host that
provides those capabilities today. Mailman is *not* that, as I hope we
all agree. Using the existing event system isn't acceptable from a
policy standpoint (which does make sense). Maybe we can build a new
tool, or add another event thing which is PUG-specific or something
along those lines, but it's a development project and not just hosting.

> I don't have a solution here; I'm using Meetup because we don't have a
> way to supply that functionality on postgresql.org, let alone the
> network effect. But it's an open question, and I'm more than a little
> concerned about the possibility of folks with the sole admin account for
> something vanishing.

I agree that it'd be great if we could have a group that can handle the
meetups.. Is there some "corporate" version of meetup that we, as a
community, might be able to purchase to get group management
capabilities or something along those lines?

> Maybe the answer is a Google Apps around and a Meetup Account controlled
> by a designated community team. I'm not sure.

That might be an option too.

> Because starting a PUG is hard. I'm arguing that we shouldn't make it
> harder by denying easily-available resources. But maybe the resources
> we should offer aren't mailing lists ...

Right, that is where I'm coming from also, mailing lists aren't the
answer here.

> >From the discussion it sounds like I should start a new thread, here or
> on advocacy, about what resources would really help get PUGs started.

That sounds like a good idea to me.

> I'd like to have both folks from WWW and Advocacy on it, though; would a
> crossover thread work, or are most of y'all on advocacy?

I'm on both, at least.

Thanks!

Stephen