Message-ID: <4BFF0FFC.3070009@agliodbs.com>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 17:36:12 -0700
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
	rv:1.9.1.9pre) Gecko/20100217 Shredder/3.0.3pre
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
CC: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>, "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>,
	Jaime Casanova <jaime@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>, jd@commandprompt.com,
	Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
	Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: List traffic
References: <201005111350.o4BDo4x27597@momjian.us>
	<AANLkTimYX6OKsUxXZistxB62wMqDztejhK45HcnjBrPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.1005131740270.22297@hub.org>
	<20506.1273785548@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.1005131912160.22297@hub.org>
	<1273790358.8624.3132.camel@jd-desktop.unknown.charter.com>
	<4913.1273790764@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4BECC5E5.1000901@2ndquadrant.com>
	<AANLkTin4XpFVH0pTCwaRywGseIeVLVlNLcAJ6T_2ggzr@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.1005141035290.22297@hub.org>
	<AANLkTimcf9sCu5hBdiDdpXbOQDZPsPa_uNec_SMtro47@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.1005150337140.22297@hub.org>
	<AANLkTimEmSQiSPXRmH1aFqvBIwFgaGuxb8C_Fb5v6oS_@mail.gmail.com>
	<4BFEB5E7.6080504@agliodbs.com> <7191.1274990914@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <7191.1274990914@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


> Well, there's no free lunch.  If we have a whole lot of "small" lists
> there are going to be two big downsides: fewer people reading each list
> (hence fewer answers), and many more arguably-misclassified postings,
> thus diluting the theoretical targetedness of the lists.

You're missing my point.  I'm saying that people *are* gettings answers 
on the -sql and -performance lists, that those lists are very busy, and 
that consolidating them with other lists would just drive people away 
due to traffic volume.  And that nobody who is suggesting list 
consolidation has presented any evidence to the contrary other than a 
*single* missed bug report.  Data is not the plural of anecdote.

I'm *not* suggesting that we create more lists just because, either.

Again, this whole discussion is a solution in search of a problem. 
Someone wants to mess with our list organization just because they are 
bored.  If they're that bored, I understand that the web team could use 
some help.  Or they could review patches.

We do not have a problem.   The lists are fine the way they are.

-- 
                                   -- Josh Berkus
                                      PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
                                      http://www.pgexperts.com