On Nov 11, 2009, at 8:55 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org> wrote:
>> On Nov 11, 2009, at 2:47 AM, Alan Barrett wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>>>> What about running the two lists in parallel for a couple of weeks,
>>>> and adding a notice to the footer indicating that users_at_s.t.o will
>>>> disappear on a given day? I don't like the long-term idea of having
>>>> to subscribe and monitor Yet Another List, but doing so in the short
>>>> term to get people to migrate sounds reasonable.
>>> People often move mailing lists without forcing users to
>>> unsubscribe/resubscribe, and without fracturing into disjoint old and
>>> new lists. I am astonished that the subversion community is even
>>> considering fracturing the lists.
>> Oh, I'd really prefer not to. That was just an olive branch to folks who think we should be doing
>> them in parallel. :)
> I have no desire to fracture the community or run parallel lists. My
> argument is that we need to do some of the things Alan is suggesting
> so that the community can move. We will know when the list can be
> shut down based on the lack of traffic.
> We do not have the option of automatically subscribing users to the
> new list,
Really? I must have misunderstood somewhere, then, because I thought we could migrate the subscribers without any trouble. If folks are somehow concerned about doing this without people's consent, we could send a mail to the list(s) in question explaining the move, and implying that by remaining a subscriber to the list, they give their implicit consent.
> so I am just saying we should use a "soft" approach where we
> encourage people to the use the new lists and eventually we stop
> monitoring and participating in the old lists ourselves.
Just because we stop monitoring, doesn't mean that others will. I'm all for leaving the archive in place, but maintaining two lists just feels Wrong.
Received on 2009-11-11 15:59:21 CET