On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > Considering how repulsive ooo-dev is for folks who are not developers, I don't > think piling onto ooo-dev is providing a service in this case. ooo-user might > work, though. But neither are inviting for folks who are specifically > interested in the documentation and would subscribe to such a list. I would > expect traffic on ooo-documentation to be comparable to that for > ooo-marketing. >
We're talking about what [email protected] would forward to. We could forward it to [email protected] and the user would not know it. They only see what they send an email to: [email protected]. If someone wants to subscribe to a list to work with the project, then the place to start is ooo-dev. If a sufficient number of them (far more than zero) say they need a list to work on documentation, then they can make that proposal. > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 09:23 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [odfauthors-discuss] Feedback link for our documents > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton > <[email protected]> wrote: >> TJ, >> >> I am not entirely comfortable having [email protected] >> (the correct list), and maybe the other forward to a non-Apache location, >> though I think it would be valuable to support the authors@ d.oo.o address. >> >> An intermediate solution would be to create ooo-documentation @i.a.o now (it >> looks like there is at least one willing moderator already) and forward to >> that. The ODFAuthors could certainly subscribe to that. The footer >> provided on ooo-documentation list forwardings could even include a link to >> a wiki page description of other places to discuss documentation, provide >> feedback, contribute documents, reviews and edits, etc. >> > > Rather than creating another list on speculation that it might get > sufficient traffic, could we just forward the legacy address to > ooo-dev? If it ends up generating sufficient traffic then it will be > easy enough to create a dedicated list for it. But I'm not in favor > of creating a new list for it at this point. > > -Rob > > > [ ... ] >
