"Joshua D. Drake" <j...@commandprompt.com> writes:
> On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 19:13 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> But that, IMHO, is the point of the smaller list ... it allows the group
>> on that list to hash out their ideas, and, hopefully, deal with both
>> arguments and counter arguments so that when presented to the larger
>> group, they would then have a more cohesive arg for their ideas ...
> Yes and no. After being on these lists for years, I have kind of been
> moving toward the less is more. E.g; for main list traffic I can see the
> need for two maybe three, that's it:
> hackers
> general
> www
I can see the need for small tightly-focused special lists. www is a
good example, and perhaps pgsql-cluster-hackers is too (though I'm less
convinced of that than Marc is). I agree that we've done poorly with
lists with wider charters, mainly because there is so little clarity
about which topics belong where.
I'd keep -bugs and -performance, which seem to be reasonably well
focused, but I can definitely see collapsing most of the other "user"
lists into -general.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
