On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Justin C. Walker <jus...@mac.com> wrote: > > On Aug 3, 2011, at 07:13 , Simon King wrote: > >> Hi all! >> >> On 1 Aug., 17:18, Jason Grout <jason-s...@creativetrax.com> wrote: >>> On 8/1/11 7:19 AM, Simon King wrote: >>> >>>> sage-newbie, sage-solaris, sage-flame, sage-marketing and sage-edu >>>> together made up for 133 posts in six months. Moving all of it to sage- >>>> devel would mean an increment of about 4%. If part of it was moved to >>>> sage-support instead, the increment would be even less. >>> >>> sage-flame is an important separate release valve for anything on sage >>> lists. I certainly don't think it should be merged with anything else. >>> >>> +1 for disbanding sage-marketing and merging that with sage-devel. +1 >>> for disbanding sage-newbie (encourage sage-support instead) and merging >>> sage-solaris with sage-devel, and maybe even merging sage-windows with >>> sage-devel. >> >> Then I ask directly: >> >> 1. Is it technically possible to merge two existing Google groups? >> 2. Do we want less Google groups for Sage?
I think the plethora of groups was in reaction to sage-devel having 1500+ messages/month, many of which were irrelevant to a plurality of subscribers, and people simply couldn't keep up. We don't have that issue as much. > My take on the number of google groups is that often, multiple groups end up > on To/CC lists, which is a headache to those not subscribed (having to deal > with bounces). So fewer is generally better. +1. It also helps avoid with cross-posting and knowing where to send a message. > I think combining sage-nt and sage-algebra is a good idea; adding in > sage-combinat-devel not so much. My sense of the latter list is it's equally > divided in traffic between "broken queue", sage-combinat-specific topics, and > "categorical" threads. If the latter could be taken to sage-devel (where > they seem to legitimately belong), that would be good. I'd merge sage-nt, sage-algebra, sage-padics but the combinat lists seem separate and active enough to merit their own group. sage-newbee should probably get merged into sage-support, and groups like sage-finance, sage-dsageng, sage-grid, debian-sage, sage-temp-permgroup, etc. are low enough traffic that they should probably just be closed and merged into sage-devel. sage-solaris probably falls into this as well these days. Huge lists are bad; lots of tiny lists are also bad. I think it does make sense to have separate groups like sage-uw, sage-daysN for very targeted audiences, and sage-flame should not in my opinion be merged into sage-devel--it's a way of keeping the main lists clean of offensive or unproductive (from the point of view of sage) messages. Personally, I just use labels and filters and tend to reply to whatever list I got the message from. On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Jason Grout <jason-s...@creativetrax.com> wrote: > On 8/3/11 11:07 AM, Johannes wrote: >> >> I don't see a common ground for sage-develop and sage-maketing. Looks >> like list should get mixed just to reduce the number of lists. > > I just posted a sage-marketing-material post on sage-devel about a flier I > tweaked for mathfest. You can see that there is some really good feedback > about it. I doubt those people would have seen it if I had just posted to > sage-marketing. Maybe the posters can answer for themselves. > > Just thought I'd throw in that data point. I think the decision of where to post should be a question of audience, not topic. In this case, even though marketing was the topic, a large number of sage-devel readers would probably be interested. A discussion on choosing adwords probably not so much. - Robert -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
