On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Marcus (OOo) <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 08/19/2011 06:34 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
<snip> >> So why wouldn't we want to shut down that list? > > Why are you asking when you want to do it anyway? ;-) > Clearly I have my own opinion on this. But I'd like to understand the counter-argument, if there is one. >> [email protected] is getting 20 spam per day. I'm a moderator on >> ooo-dev and we see maybe 1 spam every 2 weeks. > > I said I see up to 20 spam mails on the other both ML. I don't know how much > we get on dev@ooo. > OK. >> Real posts at [email protected] are infrequent and are not getting >> responded to. But ooo-dev is clearly where the thriving dev >> discussion is occurring. >> >> Aren't these good reasons to consolidate the dev discussion in one >> place? Is there any advantage to have it be fragmented across two >> lists, especially if one list is mainly getting spam? > > If so, it would be the same reason to shutdown also other mailing lists. So, > we could do it will all. > I think the dev list is special, because we have an active Apache list that has the identical purpose. The same is not true for many other OO.org lists. > As Mathias said, the shutdown will happen anyway. No need to force it. > We are currently missing opportunities when new volunteers post to the other list and do not get a response. Also, existing subscribers to the [email protected] list are missing out on the discussions we are having regarding things like reorganizing the source repository, etc. The goal should be to encourage existing subscribers to move over to ooo-dev. There are several ways of doing this. An announcement, like Matthias sent, is a good thing. Maybe also update this page: http://www.openoffice.org/mail_list.html For lists that have been migrated, put instructions there on how to subscribe to the Apache list. If we delay shutting down the list until a later point, that is fine with me. I just wanted to see if anyone thought there was a reason to preserve the list longer-term. > Marcus > > > >>> It seems that #1 is the best way for the moment as long as the old ML are >>> still working. But maybe together with a note. Then the possible new >>> participant 1) gets an (first) answer, #2 knows that it goes on at ASF, >>> and >>> #3 knows the new ML. >>> >>> My 2 ct. >>> >>> Marcus >
