| 1 |
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:06:15PM +0300, Petteri RRRty wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 07/18/2010 06:47 AM, Alex Alexander wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 03:13:22AM +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> I cross-posted this email to both gentoo-dev and gentoo-council mls as |
| 5 |
> >> Brian used the former and Alex started this thread in the latter. Which |
| 6 |
> >> ML do we want to use? |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > IMO we should be using gentoo-council@lists.g.o for this. |
| 9 |
> > Afterall, we are talking about the Council meeting agenda. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I have advocated shutting down this mailing list because usually the |
| 13 |
> threads could as well be handled on gentoo-dev or gentoo-project (would |
| 14 |
> start to have more use for gentoo-project). Maybe this council is |
| 15 |
> supportive of the idea. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
From my standpoint, -project was created purely to bannish threads of |
| 18 |
pointless bickering to; -council theoretically *should* serve a |
| 19 |
purpose, but the cross posting crap really limits that. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I'm well aware there are RFC's out there, and some folk w/ strong |
| 22 |
opinions that cross posting is the path to hell- that said it's *very* |
| 23 |
useful for getting folks attention, keeping people in the loop. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
If there is to be no cross posting, then -council ml is kind of |
| 26 |
worthless. As for -project... from a growth standpoint we probably |
| 27 |
need to keep the two seperate although I personally do not find that |
| 28 |
divide to be useful. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
My 2 cents, as it were. |
| 31 |
~harring |
Archives