On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 09:23:17AM -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote: > +1 from me for what it's worth. In other words getting that resource (a > list) typically goes hand-in-hand with a project going from proposal status > to community-approved status, but I'm pretty sure that's just protocol, not > a hard-and-fast policy, so under the circumstances, I'm *definitely* in > favor > of forgoing that protocol in this case.
Any Community Group can ask for a separate list to be created for discussion of some subset of its interests. There's precedent for this in the form of tools-gcc, to name one. I'd hate to think we've wasted so much time and effort if all you're looking for is a mailing list. > Another alternative worth considering I think would be to have Indiana > discussions on sfwnv-discuss for now. It's an optimal fit for a variety of As someone who reads this list, I'd appreciate it being separate. SFW has a purpose independent of your proposed distribution, even though it's possible that you'll want to make certain changes to it. It seems that those changes could be suggested here when you think you know what they are, and that subset of the work discussed then. It would probably be a good idea to ask the Group you eventually expect to sponsor this project to host the discussion list, but, again, any Group can do so. Note that (unlike ON) SFW is not a Group, only a Project. I don't, however, see any reason projects can't also create arbitrary sets of discussion lists pertinent to their work. > But I vote +1 either way. And if its decided that a separate > indiana-discuss list is the way to go, I'm one of the admins of the Mailman > system, so I'd be glad to set it up, assuming there won't be any objections > (that make any sense that is). No objection from me; any Group that wants to create such a list is welcome to do so. No discussion, permission, or process required. Imagine that, eh? -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
