> > [...]
> > > With my developer hat on, I only use Ruby and C/Ruby.  With my DBA hat
> > > on, I only use PostgreSQL and BDB.  As a sysadmin, it's FreeBSD.  I
> > > work hard to be good at what I do and enjoy staying informed of what's
> > > going on in each of those communities.  When I read my email, I read
> > > it in the order of 'inbox', 'cvs commit lists for projects I
> > > maintain', 'cvs commit lists for the products I use', '-announce
> > > lists', '-bug lists', '-security lists', '-bug lists', '-hacker
> > > lists', '-admin lists', '-audit', '-arch', and generic user lists some
> > > where down at the bottom of the pile.  -talk, however, doesn't fit
> > > nicely into that stratification.  -talk is the bug list, is the
> > > security list, is the -hacker list, is the -admin list, is -arch list,
> > > and up until recently, used to be the -core list.
> > [...]
> >
> > It's very easy for someone who wants to read every single message
> > about ruby to subscribe to multiple lists... it takes maybe a few
> > minutes of their life, once.  For the 95% of people who have more
> > limited interests, it is difficult or even impossible to select
> > only messages that are related to certain topics unless the lists
> > are split up.
> >
> > [...]
> 
> OK, these arguments have persuaded me.  It's reasonable to have some
> new lists.  I just plead for sanity in their creation.  They should
> be kept together (at ruby-lan.org) and created in an organized way.
> The ultimate documentation for what gets posted where will end up in
> the FAQ.  This information should be concise, coherent and sensible.

I'm inclined to agree myself and need to take fault for not talking
with Matz or anyone else at Netlab for seeing if this was possible.
I'm very willing and able to transfer subscriber lists to
ruby-lang.org if that is setup (maybe just a mail alias for
listname / ruby-lang.org and setup the appropriate mx records to point
to my list servers.  Just a thought since I've got bandwidth and
resources I'm willing to donate to ruby).  The flip side of the topic
is, there's something to be said for having a non-official list
because that lowers the bar for what can be considered an announcement
or makes it easier to fire up a discussion list about various topics.
Announcements coming from ruby-lang.org carry some weight in terms of
their officialness and the consequences of the announcement.
Rhetorical question: would you guys like ruby-lang.org to be a hub of
social and community events?  If so, that's additional resources and
burdens that would be placed on Matz and other folk who help
administer the netlab servers.  I, for one, would like to see their
time spent on Ruby and not on mailing lists or worrying about
community events... but then again, I'm biased and have an interest in
time being spent on Rite.  ::grin::

> An announcement list is sensible, but it should have the appearance
> of official sanction, not just be created on an arbitrary site.  If
> the future FAQ entry about mailing lists looks inconsistent, it
> reflects poorly on the maturity of the community and ultimately the
> language.

There's definitely truth to that and I won't argue with it one bit.

> Another benefit of lists being grouped is that subscriptions can be
> managed more easily.

Agreed...  but, the flip side being that rubynet could be a general
community site that handles the off topic, non-interpreter lists.

> Just as it takes a few minutes to subscribe to multi[ple lists, it
> takes a few minutes to create those lists sensibly.

Not disagreeing there.  -sc

-- 
Sean Chittenden