I agree. If erlang@ becomes the place where newbie questions about Erlang go ignored, we should can the list.
You requested examples: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-marketing/ http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cloudstack-marketing/ Andy, how about two review dates? Six months, and then 12 months. Let's review *all* lists on these dates. On 4 February 2014 11:52, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Nick, I don't think you are filibustering. You raise a good point that >> has not come up yet. >> > > actually I already raised it. And took the Erlang ml as an example of a > very little traffic list. The advocacy list on postgresql, is also very > little used. Even it was created 10 years ago. > > >> >> Namely: what do we consider to be the success criteria of mailing >> lists? And perhaps more importantly: what are the failure criteria? >> >> Here's my attempt at answering those questions. >> >> Success criteria: >> >> - The mailing lists are occasionally used, and when questions are >> posted there, replies are received. >> - People who might not otherwise have been active start to become active. >> >> Failure criteria: >> >> - Mails posted to the list go unread/un-responded to. >> - Something important for the whole community was missed because it >> was happening away from the dev@ list. >> >> >> > These are good points that actually can be applied to this erlang list. It > is too soon to say the same for the others though. > > Anyway, This is why I think it's important to see what happen in other > projects so we can anticipate what could happen. At least try to > anticipate. Anticipation and planning are generally a good way to minimize > failures. I mentionned some. > > - benoit -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
