Re: Do we need a debian-infrastructure list?
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 04:06:21PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Martin Schulze (joey@infodrom.org) [040328 15:55]:
> > For a while I wondered if we need a moderated list for infrastructure
> > issue. [...]
> >
> > Where should we send mails such as
> > [...]
>
> I for myself would be quite happy with most of them at d-d-a (at least
> all permanent messages as "services moved", "host (un)restricted",
> ...), because they have more or less the same audience as d-d-a.
> "Temporary" messages are IMHO quite good announced in d-d, together
> with an appropriate irc-topic. (And whoever ignores the few messages
> of a debian-admin-member to d-d probably is also not hit by temporary
> outages.)
I dunno. We *want* -devel-announce to be read be every DD, even the ones
which are almost-MIA, in the hope that they'd react to urgent stuff. If
there'll be a lot more of infrastructural messages (which I fully
approve of per se) on -devel-announce, some of them might feel annoyed
by them (if they're almost-MIA, they're probably not interested whether
the BTS moves from master to spohr or whatever) and unsubscribe from
-devel-announce. Thus I'd rather see an -infrastructure list (but that
is partly due to the fact that I'm not subscribed to -devel right now).
More general infrastructural messages with permanent or critical impact
should still be CC'd to -devel-announce, regardless of -infrastructure,
IMHO.
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
mbanck@debian.org
http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
Reply to: