Re: status of eligibility of dug lists on lists.debian.org
>>>>> martin f krafft <email@example.com> writes:
> So the solution was to get one or two additional people, and
> eventually I was even able to invest in more fail-proof hardware.
> … and then you ask yourself what to do with all the spare cycles and
> wouldn't other LUGs profit from your setup… And you keep going and
> going and the dependence on you grows.
> Now there are three ways forward:
> 1. take back the mailing list, my infrastructure still exists and
> could handle it, but am I willing to give a guarantee for the next
> years to come?
> 2. work with teams.debian.net to get it back up to speed.
> 3. or use the official and professionally maintained infrastructure
> on alioth.d.o or lists.d.o, which can probably handle a couple
> dozens of additional lists. I can understand that we don't want a
> new list for every formation or group in the Debian universe,
To be honest, it's the very reason I dislike mailing lists. The
groups come and go, while mailing lists have to stay forever,
for their archive to be available for posterity.
Usenet is better (though still not ideal) in this respect, as
newsgroups aren't much more than just “tags”, which a single
message may bear an arbitrary number of.
Starting a “discussion group” should require no more skill and
time than tuning a radio to an agreed frequency. And the
archive should persist for as long as there's anyone to care.
> but a list for large groups like the Debian users in and around of
> Munich should arguably be doable.
> My preference is clearly (3.). Maybe one of the sysadmins who could
> host their own LUG list would be interested in helping the
> listmasters. And should the hardware not be enough, then we can
> probably find ways to upgrade it.
I'd be fine going (2), either. What exactly needs to be done?
FSF associate member #7257