Re: Mailing list cleanup proposal

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 02:45:12AM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: 
> So, you think we should do without gnome-private? I think it's pretty useful
> despite the warts, but like hackers, it would be good if there was a known
> policy, and perhaps even a list of subscribers (with munged addresses) on
> the web.

I think it is useful to have -private, but I wish the subscriber list
was less arbitrary.

> I probably didn't explain the 'configuration oddness' thing very well. We
> have gnome-hackers, gnome-hackers-posters, gnome-hackers-readonly,
> gnome-private, gnome-private-members, gnome-private-posters.

Ah, I thought gnome-private and gnome-hackers had exactly the same
members.

Surely all -posters lists can be folded into post-only?

Havoc
_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers