Richard Wackerbarth writes: > I agree that it might be messier. But it still might be cleaner if > you want the moderators, etc. to have all of the "subscription > options"
We don't. Some are meaningless (notMeToo, noDups), some should not be available (noMail -- at least not if a vacation facility is available). I don't contest that there are strong similarities between a "list of moderators" and a "mailing list of subscribers". What I'm saying is that they're not the same, there are several variations on the theme, and we must strongly consider deriving them from a more general type. > > I don't think this will fit users' models of the moderator and owner > > roles. Mailing lists have moderators, not an auto-generated > > associated mailing list containing only the moderators. > > That all depends on how you present it, not on how you implement > it. IIRC, the list of moderators is a roster, just like the > subscribers. A different template can make two rosters appear to > be quite different. The developers are users too, though. I think the implementation, not just the presentation, should correspond to our notions of "what things are." Steve _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
