To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@commandprompt.com>
cc: pgsql-www@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Proposal to remove some mailing lists 
In-reply-to: <20080703175542.GJ779@commandprompt.com> 
References: <200807021849.03869.peter_e@gmx.net> <486CA8D0.8000601@iol.ie>
	<200807031146.06945.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
	<1215100630.6936.11.camel@jd-laptop>
	<20080703161318.GF779@commandprompt.com>
	<4964.1215107514@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20080703175542.GJ779@commandprompt.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Andrew Sullivan <ajs@commandprompt.com>
	message dated "Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:55:42 -0400"
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:05:32 -0400
Message-ID: <5162.1215108332@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@commandprompt.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 01:51:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think all that we're doing is helping Peter polish a proposal to be
>> presented to pgsql-general.

> I sort of was presuming that the proposal to retire a given list ought
> to be debated on that list too (and I think this is covered by the
> "there may be objections" in Peter's proposal); but do we really need
> to debate the merits of another list on -general?  If people aren't
> actually subscribed to the list in question, why should they care (or,
> for that matter, be consulted) on its disposition?

Well, that would work too, as long as we assume that each of the
keep-or-retire decisions is independent.  I'm not sure that they are
independent though.  At least, I think we ought to present the whole
thing as one proposal, so that people don't have a reaction of "why
are you picking on my list?"

			regards, tom lane