On Wednesday 16 May 2007, Sanford Dickert wrote: > > I vote against this and the reasons are as easy: Google (groups) has > > nothing to do with Open Source, Data or Standards and their services > > also have technical problems (I don't want to blame them, but that's the > > situation).
I would very much concentrate our services in one place. SF.net does our SVN, has forums, mailing lists, basically all we need. <snip> > Actually, google has been a supporter of open source efforts for quite some > time. They also fail to have any interest in chemistry what so ever. Even when it is indexing chemistry. > Their news service has nothing to do with the google groups, and > they have been steadily improving this service (full disclosure: I am > personal friends with the lead engineer at gGroups and was heavily involved > with eGroups). If you can get Google to provide proper support for indexing InChIs or chemistry in general, it could be tempting to have a BO group with Google. > > I don't understand, why accessing a mailing list or a newsgroup shall be > > a barrier for people wanting to join an (also) technically oriented > > project? Why do you think, you wouldn't have the problem, when you host > > the discussion forum via Google Groups service? > > The reason is that gGroups allows for easy click-thru joining - and offers > other ways of joining WITHOUT having to become a member of google or google > Accounts (e.g. you can add your email address to the list without signing > up for google Accounts) How is that different from the click-through on SF when registering with a SF mailing list? > With gGroups, you should be able to set moderation such that you have total > control over who joins, who posts, etcetera. Same on SF. SF also provides archives which people can browse. Egon -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog: http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/ GPG: 1024D/D6336BA6 _______________________________________________ Blue-obelisk mailing list [email protected] http://hardly.cubic.uni-koeln.de/mailman/listinfo/blue-obelisk
