> > 2. Do we want less Google groups for Sage? > > I don't. Maybe a few less, but see William's comments below.
> > To summarise what I've been arguing above: > > (a) Experienced people are busy on the small lists, thus, read sage- > > support less frequently, thus, the big lists are less responsive. > > This is not my experience. If not for the small lists, some of these > experienced people would just read *no lists*. I think that is very true. A lot of people aren't interested in sage- devel. > I don't agree that sage-support and sage-devel have become overally > noticeable less *responsive* than they were four years ago, at least I do agree that sage-support has become less responsive to certain kinds of support requests. I don't think this is because of multiple lists, or even because of ask.sagemath.org, though that might be part of it. I think it's because people who know how to answer those questions easily have tired (not in a bad way, just moved on) and do not check them as frequently, and because some of the questions have continued to be somewhat vague and computational. I know that I am reluctant to say on sage-support "here is a first idea about what is going on from a non-expert, but maybe someone else who *is* an expert will have a better idea" because many times no one has responded for a long time after I said that. In fact, I have personally had a number of sage-support requests unanswered ;-) > My impression with sage-marketing is that often the discussion is > something that doesn't feel right for having thousands of readers. (?) Who knows? Can someone find the original emails sparking the creation of sage-marketing? > Having sage-edu separate is valuable in a somewhat similar way that > having bothhttp://meta.stackoverflow.com/ > andhttp://mathoverflow.net/is valuable. Many discussions > onhttp://mathoverflow.net/are quickly +1 > Merging the sage-windows list with sage-devel is not the only way to > raise alertness. Another approach would be for somebody to post > periodic updates to sage-devel about windows porting work, along with > a note that says: "get involved by: > * subscribing to sage-windows; * downloading and building sage > following the directions athttp://xxx, etc." Same with sage-solaris. If increasing visibility in this way wouldn't ruffle feathers, I'll continue to do this, and hopefully Dave K. can with solaris (if the blocker he mentioned not too long ago is overcome, anyway). > Also, there are quite a lot of people who are highly involved with > Sage development work, and who read sage-devel, but have > (unfortunately) zero interest in porting Sage to Windows. They use OS > X or Linux, and don't want to think about the world outside that. But > I'm not in favor of barraging them with messages about porting Sage to > Windows (or Solaris or anything else), since I greatly value their > contributions to the platform-independent parts of Sage. > Though one could say the same about people who have zero interest in getting Pari or Maxima to upgrade, or getting Sage to work on Lion, yet there are discussions about these things on sage-devel :) Here it's more a matter of individual preference, perhaps? - kcrisman -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
