On 01/07/2014 11:11, Nick Stenning wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 00:10, Randall Leeds wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 1:50 AM, Ernesto Torresin (ML) < >> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> But is it easy to get more ML at [email protected], or are we talking about >>> nothing? Only an institution backing the Annotator or a fork of it could >>> host the lists reliably over the years, I think. >>> >> >> Nick, do you want to weigh in on this last question? > > Happy to. > > We can easily get more mailing lists at @lists.okfn.org. > > My inclination at the moment would be to resist the temptation to split > annotator-discuss (or annotator-users) off from annotator-dev. If others > disagree with me then I'm very happy to have my opinion swayed, but > there's a "critical mass" effect with mailing lists, and I'm not > convinced there is a critical mass of people who would participate in an > annotator-users mailing list.
Sorry, I am not getting the point here. What is such mass "critical" for? adoption or development? In the past, I got the impression that the real problem with the Annotator is just that it is not as popular as it deserves. So I thought that having a list for non-pundits may encourage adoption, and also be a place were the "core" Annotator is presented in a practical way, "bundled" with plugins as necessary. ?-) E.T. _______________________________________________ annotator-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/annotator-dev Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/annotator-dev
