Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86A996330CB for ; Thu, 13 May 2010 19:46:20 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 75308-07 for ; Thu, 13 May 2010 22:46:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 177AF632FEB for ; Thu, 13 May 2010 19:46:12 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o4DMk406004914; Thu, 13 May 2010 18:46:04 -0400 (EDT) To: jd@commandprompt.com cc: "Marc G. Fournier" , Magnus Hagander , Greg Stark , Robert Haas , Alvaro Herrera , Bruce Momjian , Simon Riggs , pgsql-hackers Subject: Re: List traffic In-reply-to: <1273790358.8624.3132.camel@jd-desktop.unknown.charter.com> References: <201005111350.o4BDo4x27597@momjian.us> <1273598624-sup-3654@alvh.no-ip.org> <20506.1273785548@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1273790358.8624.3132.camel@jd-desktop.unknown.charter.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Joshua D. Drake" message dated "Thu, 13 May 2010 15:39:18 -0700" Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 18:46:04 -0400 Message-ID: <4913.1273790764@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201005/707 X-Sequence-Number: 162370 "Joshua D. Drake" 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