On Nov 10, 2009, at 10:01 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:56 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
>> Mark Phippard wrote:
>>> I am against closing the users@ list on tigris after we
>>> move. I think we should probably have a users list at Apache if other
>>> projects do, but I do not think we should try to force anyone to
>>> migrate from the current list.
>> This makes sense in terms of minimal disruption, but I think if/when we pop
>> up a users list at Apache, we'll want to stop pointing folks to the s.t.o
>> list. How (if at all) would your opinion change if we put forwarding rules
>> in place that caused mails from users_at_s.t.o to go instead to users_at_s.a.o
>> (and likewise for dev@), assuming we can pull that off as a
>> hotfix/instance-set to Tigris?
> I would be against that. I am totally in favor of advertising and
> promoting the new lists (including on the tigris lists themselves),
> but we ought to let the users move to the new lists (or not)
> organically. If we start encouraging cross-posting or we try to do it
> behind the scenes I do not see how that is not going to create
> unexpected problems.
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.
Received on 2009-11-10 17:08:25 CET