Обсуждение: Idea for a secondary list server
WWW, Because of the difficulty in deleting lists, and because of the administrative overhead per list, the admins have to be fairly restrictive about adding lists to the @postgresql.org majordomo server. On occasion, this has resulted in very discouraging conversations with new PUG chapter organizers and other folks wanting to do something new which requires a list on a speculative basis. Also, this has resulted in several lists for active and popular PostgreSQL tools continuing to run on pgfoundry.org, despite its deprecation. And unlike source code repositories and web hosting, free, independant list hosting is not generally available on the web*. As such, I propose that we ask OSL** to host a mailman instance for us.This is something they regularly do, and I've spokenwith Lance Anderson about it. Since we would be using more resources than most projects, we would make an annual donation to the OSL from one of our foundations, or maybe from a project sponsor. This would then run on some approprate postgresql.org subdomain. This would get us a secondary list server where we could create lists with fewer restrictions than our main listserv, without needing to add to the workload of the sysadmins or give untrusted people admin credentials. User support for this listserv could even be done by folks not in the current sysadmin pool (like me). Good/bad/questions? (* Yahoo and Google do have Groups stuff, but both come with restrictions and spam which make them unsuitable for project lists) (** Open Source Labs, a nonprofit hosting center of Oregon State University) -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
Josh,
* Josh Berkus (josh@agliodbs.com) wrote:
> Because of the difficulty in deleting lists, and because of the
> administrative overhead per list, the admins have to be fairly
> restrictive about adding lists to the @postgresql.org majordomo server.
Uh, the issue isn't that it's technically difficult to delete lists,
it's that it's nearly impossible *politically*. Using mailman isn't
going to fix that. Neither is the concern, when it comes to new tools,
etc, that those who would be most welcome and interested in such a topic
likely don't want to follow yet another mailing list and therefore would
prefer that the discussion happen using the existing lists.
Perhaps I've missed it, but a request to move an existing *active* list
from pgfoundry over to the @postgresql.org list system wouldn't suffer
from these concerns and would therefore, I expect, be implemented with
much less discussion.
Further, we could certainly host a mailman instance (actually, we
already run a number of them for various reasons); there's no reason to
involve OSL (who would be a much better resource for us by providing
hardware and hosting than by running a mailman instance, but they've
been less than anxious to do so and that does not encourage me to look
to them for other hosting).
> This would get us a secondary list server where we could create lists
> with fewer restrictions than our main listserv, without needing to add
> to the workload of the sysadmins or give untrusted people admin
> credentials. User support for this listserv could even be done by folks
> not in the current sysadmin pool (like me).
Having a slew of not used mailing lists would not be beneficial to the
community in general, in my opinion. Again, the issue is less about
the workload and more about the concern of having far more lists than
make any sense, 90+% of which are essentially dead.
Thanks,
Stephen
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: > Josh, > > * Josh Berkus (josh@agliodbs.com) wrote: >> Because of the difficulty in deleting lists, and because of the >> administrative overhead per list, the admins have to be fairly >> restrictive about adding lists to the @postgresql.org majordomo server. > > Uh, the issue isn't that it's technically difficult to delete lists, > it's that it's nearly impossible *politically*. Using mailman isn't > going to fix that. Neither is the concern, when it comes to new tools, > etc, that those who would be most welcome and interested in such a topic > likely don't want to follow yet another mailing list and therefore would > prefer that the discussion happen using the existing lists. > > Perhaps I've missed it, but a request to move an existing *active* list > from pgfoundry over to the @postgresql.org list system wouldn't suffer > from these concerns and would therefore, I expect, be implemented with > much less discussion. > > Further, we could certainly host a mailman instance (actually, we > already run a number of them for various reasons); there's no reason to > involve OSL (who would be a much better resource for us by providing > hardware and hosting than by running a mailman instance, but they've > been less than anxious to do so and that does not encourage me to look > to them for other hosting). > >> This would get us a secondary list server where we could create lists >> with fewer restrictions than our main listserv, without needing to add >> to the workload of the sysadmins or give untrusted people admin >> credentials. User support for this listserv could even be done by folks >> not in the current sysadmin pool (like me). > > Having a slew of not used mailing lists would not be beneficial to the > community in general, in my opinion. Again, the issue is less about > the workload and more about the concern of having far more lists than > make any sense, 90+% of which are essentially dead. I agree entirely. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 02/24/2015 12:57 AM, Dave Page wrote: >> Having a slew of not used mailing lists would not be beneficial to the >> > community in general, in my opinion. Again, the issue is less about >> > the workload and more about the concern of having far more lists than >> > make any sense, 90+% of which are essentially dead. > I agree entirely. So the alternative is that we'll be running folks through the gauntlet of justification whenever they ask for a list, and requiring them to prove the popularity of their project/group/etc. before allocating them one -- something which is hard to do without having a list in the first place. Alternatively, having a secondary list server with external infrastructure support and an automated termination policy for idle lists would give us an "incubator" area where people could prove the viability of their focused sub-communities ... or not. This would allow us to NOT spend time arguing on this list over whether a specific group deserved a list or not. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
* Josh Berkus (josh@agliodbs.com) wrote:
> On 02/24/2015 12:57 AM, Dave Page wrote:
> >> Having a slew of not used mailing lists would not be beneficial to the
> >> > community in general, in my opinion. Again, the issue is less about
> >> > the workload and more about the concern of having far more lists than
> >> > make any sense, 90+% of which are essentially dead.
> > I agree entirely.
>
> So the alternative is that we'll be running folks through the gauntlet
> of justification whenever they ask for a list, and requiring them to
> prove the popularity of their project/group/etc. before allocating them
> one -- something which is hard to do without having a list in the first
> place.
I'm missing the part where this is a downside.
> Alternatively, having a secondary list server with external
> infrastructure support and an automated termination policy for idle
> lists would give us an "incubator" area where people could prove the
> viability of their focused sub-communities ... or not. This would allow
> us to NOT spend time arguing on this list over whether a specific group
> deserved a list or not.
If we had a policy for idle lists then we'd be much better off. That's
a completely independent consideration from where the lists are hosted.
I'd encourage you to propose such a policy. Once that's been hammered
out, we'll clean up the existing lists and address any requests for new
ones.
Thanks!
Stephen
On 02/24/2015 12:05 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > > On 02/24/2015 12:57 AM, Dave Page wrote: >>> Having a slew of not used mailing lists would not be beneficial to the >>>> community in general, in my opinion. Again, the issue is less about >>>> the workload and more about the concern of having far more lists than >>>> make any sense, 90+% of which are essentially dead. >> I agree entirely. > > So the alternative is that we'll be running folks through the gauntlet > of justification whenever they ask for a list, and requiring them to > prove the popularity of their project/group/etc. before allocating them > one -- something which is hard to do without having a list in the first > place. That isn't the alternative. That is the reality. There is a reason that WhatcomPUG exists outside of .Org. It is because .Org made it hard to be a part of it and I am positive other PUGS have had the same impression/reaction. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development High Availability, Oracle Conversion, @cmdpromptinc "If we send our children to Caesar for their education, we should not be surprised when they come back as Romans."
On 02/24/2015 12:08 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Josh Berkus (josh@agliodbs.com) wrote: >> On 02/24/2015 12:57 AM, Dave Page wrote: >>>> Having a slew of not used mailing lists would not be beneficial to the >>>>> community in general, in my opinion. Again, the issue is less about >>>>> the workload and more about the concern of having far more lists than >>>>> make any sense, 90+% of which are essentially dead. >>> I agree entirely. >> >> So the alternative is that we'll be running folks through the gauntlet >> of justification whenever they ask for a list, and requiring them to >> prove the popularity of their project/group/etc. before allocating them >> one -- something which is hard to do without having a list in the first >> place. > > I'm missing the part where this is a downside. Because it's hostile to community members who just want to do something cool. Nothing destroys your enthusiasm for PostgreSQL faster than having a senior project member tell you you're not "worthy" of a list. The more so because the approval policy is *entirely* subjective; there are no written rules anywhere. The current practice makes the completely unjustified assumption that the admin group is a fair and accurate judge of whether a new group is likely to be popular or not. For example, what does telling a new PUG organizer they can't have a list say about postgresql.org's attitude towards starting new user groups, and towards whatever part of the world they're from? This has also been a succession of having the admin group move the goalposts. First, when we booted pgfoundry Dave promised we'd be more open about adding lists to @postgresql.org. Then he said that we couldn't do that for resource/time reasons. Now you're saying that even without resourcing reasons, you're just opposed to new lists period. >> Alternatively, having a secondary list server with external >> infrastructure support and an automated termination policy for idle >> lists would give us an "incubator" area where people could prove the >> viability of their focused sub-communities ... or not. This would allow >> us to NOT spend time arguing on this list over whether a specific group >> deserved a list or not. > > If we had a policy for idle lists then we'd be much better off. That's > a completely independent consideration from where the lists are hosted. > > I'd encourage you to propose such a policy. Once that's been hammered > out, we'll clean up the existing lists and address any requests for new > ones. I'm not going to waste my time discussing such a policy if it's not part of making it easier for folks to get new lists, which I note you're not promising. I will be happy to help write and enforce a policy if it means that new list requests get dealt with in a fair and generous manner. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > On 02/24/2015 12:08 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> * Josh Berkus (josh@agliodbs.com) wrote: >>> On 02/24/2015 12:57 AM, Dave Page wrote: >>>>> Having a slew of not used mailing lists would not be beneficial to the >>>>>> community in general, in my opinion. Again, the issue is less about >>>>>> the workload and more about the concern of having far more lists than >>>>>> make any sense, 90+% of which are essentially dead. >>>> I agree entirely. >>> >>> So the alternative is that we'll be running folks through the gauntlet >>> of justification whenever they ask for a list, and requiring them to >>> prove the popularity of their project/group/etc. before allocating them >>> one -- something which is hard to do without having a list in the first >>> place. >> >> I'm missing the part where this is a downside. > > Because it's hostile to community members who just want to do something > cool. Nothing destroys your enthusiasm for PostgreSQL faster than > having a senior project member tell you you're not "worthy" of a list. > The more so because the approval policy is *entirely* subjective; there > are no written rules anywhere. The current practice makes the > completely unjustified assumption that the admin group is a fair and > accurate judge of whether a new group is likely to be popular or not. > > For example, what does telling a new PUG organizer they can't have a > list say about postgresql.org's attitude towards starting new user > groups, and towards whatever part of the world they're from? > > This has also been a succession of having the admin group move the > goalposts. First, when we booted pgfoundry Dave promised we'd be more > open about adding lists to @postgresql.org. We haven't booted pgFoundry - it still seems to be up and running, and my migration plans were cancelled when Marc insisted on keeping it going. > Then he said that we > couldn't do that for resource/time reasons. Now you're saying that > even without resourcing reasons, you're just opposed to new lists period. I probably did say we were short on resources, and at that time probably did object to large scale moves to postgresql.org. Since then however, the infrastructure has been made much more maintainable, so I'm not sure I hold that view any more. Even when I did, I was only one voice - and whilst it's nice to think I have such power, the reality is that it's a group decision, not mine alone. >>> Alternatively, having a secondary list server with external >>> infrastructure support and an automated termination policy for idle >>> lists would give us an "incubator" area where people could prove the >>> viability of their focused sub-communities ... or not. This would allow >>> us to NOT spend time arguing on this list over whether a specific group >>> deserved a list or not. >> >> If we had a policy for idle lists then we'd be much better off. That's >> a completely independent consideration from where the lists are hosted. >> >> I'd encourage you to propose such a policy. Once that's been hammered >> out, we'll clean up the existing lists and address any requests for new >> ones. > > I'm not going to waste my time discussing such a policy if it's not part > of making it easier for folks to get new lists, which I note you're not > promising. I will be happy to help write and enforce a policy if it > means that new list requests get dealt with in a fair and generous manner. I think a policy would be a fine thing, and would not object to adding lists if we can agree a reasonable set of criteria to use. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Josh Berkus wrote: > Because it's hostile to community members who just want to do something > cool. Nothing destroys your enthusiasm for PostgreSQL faster than > having a senior project member tell you you're not "worthy" of a list. > The more so because the approval policy is *entirely* subjective; there > are no written rules anywhere. The current practice makes the > completely unjustified assumption that the admin group is a fair and > accurate judge of whether a new group is likely to be popular or not. > > For example, what does telling a new PUG organizer they can't have a > list say about postgresql.org's attitude towards starting new user > groups, and towards whatever part of the world they're from? For some time we were very open to creating lots of PUG lists. That didn't turn out well; see in http://www.postgresql.org/list/group/6/ the following groups: http://www.postgresql.org/list/rgnpug/ http://www.postgresql.org/list/hyd-in-pug/ http://www.postgresql.org/list/pgmke/ http://www.postgresql.org/list/sandiegopug/ http://www.postgresql.org/list/triangle-nc-pug/ Compare to groups that were active before the lists got created: http://www.postgresql.org/list/pdxpug/ http://www.postgresql.org/list/sthlm-pug/ http://www.postgresql.org/list/sfpug/ -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 02/24/2015 01:19 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Compare to groups that were active before the lists got created: > http://www.postgresql.org/list/pdxpug/ > http://www.postgresql.org/list/sthlm-pug/ > http://www.postgresql.org/list/sfpug/ Actually, SFPUG was created starting with the mailing list. I know, Fetter and I created it. All this points to is the need for a solid termination policy, preferably one which is automated so people don't get the chance to argue about it. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
Josh Berkus wrote: > All this points to is the need for a solid termination policy, > preferably one which is automated so people don't get the chance to > argue about it. Fine with me. Then I feel more comfortable creating additional PUG lists. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 02/24/2015 01:32 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: > >> All this points to is the need for a solid termination policy, >> preferably one which is automated so people don't get the chance to >> argue about it. > > Fine with me. Then I feel more comfortable creating additional PUG > lists. OK, here's my proposal: * Mailing lists with more than 6 months of total inactivity will be automatically terminated. * Mailing lists with fewer than 20 posts in a year will be automatically terminated. * "Is anyone here?" posts are not considered activity. * When terminating a list, one of the admins or the list owner will post a last message to that list informing users about it's imminent termination. Not so they can rescue the list, but just so they don't wonder where it went. One question is: for terminated lists, what is our policy/practice on archives? For example, I'd like to terminate the SFPUG list. Given that we have Meetup, RSS *and* Twitter, we really don't need it anymore. However, I'm reluctant to delete the archives. A second question: what about reactivating lists? Example: SLCPUG stops meeting and their list goes dead. We terminate the list but keep the archives. Two years later, a new community member wants to re-organize SLCPUG. Do we have a way to give them a list which will archive to the same place? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On 2/23/15 6:25 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On occasion, this has resulted in very discouraging conversations with > new PUG chapter organizers and other folks wanting to do something new > which requires a list on a speculative basis. Also, this has resulted > in several lists for active and popular PostgreSQL tools continuing to > run on pgfoundry.org, despite its deprecation. And unlike source code > repositories and web hosting, free, independant list hosting is not > generally available on the web*. http://librelist.com/
On 02/27/2015 01:36 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 02/24/2015 01:32 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Josh Berkus wrote: >> >>> All this points to is the need for a solid termination policy, >>> preferably one which is automated so people don't get the chance to >>> argue about it. >> >> Fine with me. Then I feel more comfortable creating additional PUG >> lists. > > OK, here's my proposal: > > * Mailing lists with more than 6 months of total inactivity will be > automatically terminated. > * Mailing lists with fewer than 20 posts in a year will be automatically > terminated. > * "Is anyone here?" posts are not considered activity. > * When terminating a list, one of the admins or the list owner will post > a last message to that list informing users about it's imminent > termination. Not so they can rescue the list, but just so they don't > wonder where it went. all nice and clear - but who is going to check whether lists fall under that termination rule or not on a regular base? Are you volunteering? Also to put some numbers to this - we currently have 35 PUG lists, out of those only 5(6 if the cutoff would be 10) would make the cut per the above rules and only 13(!) had more than a single mail in all of 2014. There have been only 268 mails in total over all of those 35 lists. > > One question is: for terminated lists, what is our policy/practice on > archives? dont think we have one > > For example, I'd like to terminate the SFPUG list. Given that we have > Meetup, RSS *and* Twitter, we really don't need it anymore. However, > I'm reluctant to delete the archives. uh isnt that actually _the_ prime example why we dont actually need more lists? If a PUG as large and successful as SFPUG does not need one because there are better ways to coordinate a PUG and make it successful why are we not promoting those? Per the above numbers it is obvious that we dont need more mailing lists but what we need is a solid set of recommendations on how to run a successful pug and what tools to use for that (wiki?). > > A second question: what about reactivating lists? > > Example: SLCPUG stops meeting and their list goes dead. We terminate > the list but keep the archives. Two years later, a new community member > wants to re-organize SLCPUG. Do we have a way to give them a list which > will archive to the same place? dont think there is any technical issue with doing it that way but again I have some doubts that it is actually needed at all. Stefan
Josh Berkus wrote: > OK, here's my proposal: The archival issue, together with the possibility of reactivation, is precisely what makes deletion difficult. What you seem to want is not to delete them, but to make them inactive, so that they can be activated later for whatever reason. Right? (Majordomo does have the feature to set lists as inactive, which means no email is distributed through them. They can later be reactivated.) Your comments on the usefulness of the SFPUG list are pretty surprising. If SFPUG works well without a list, why do other PUGs need one? Maybe mailing lists for PUGs are a thing of the past -- perhaps we need to be thinking on getting the @postgres twitter account to re-tweet announcements posted by PUGs, or something like that, more suited to today's usage of comm channels rather than 1990's. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> Your comments on the usefulness of the SFPUG list are pretty surprising.
> If SFPUG works well without a list, why do other PUGs need one?
> Maybe mailing lists for PUGs are a thing of the past -- perhaps we need
> to be thinking on getting the @postgres twitter account to re-tweet
> announcements posted by PUGs, or something like that, more suited to
> today's usage of comm channels rather than 1990's.
I like this idea a lot. DCPUG, for example, does pretty well without
using its mailing list and I don't think using it more would help
things (it didn't seem to when we used to)- getting retweeted would be
really nice though. Having the listing on postgresql.org is kind of
nice but that does run the issue of keeping *that* current and listing
the active PUGs.
Having a listing sorted by date which lists the last meetings would be a
lot more useful. This might be getting a bit far afield, but is there a
way we could get meetup integrated into planet? Or having something
else planet-like which provides that integration? Basically, where a
PUG meetup organizer would be able to just configure something-or-other
and then when they post new meetups it'd end up on planet or
'pug.postgresql.org' or something. If G+ has something similar, we
could integrate with that also possibly.
Thanks!
Stephen
On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 11:56:37AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: > > > OK, here's my proposal: > > The archival issue, together with the possibility of reactivation, is > precisely what makes deletion difficult. What you seem to want is not > to delete them, but to make them inactive, so that they can be activated > later for whatever reason. Right? > > (Majordomo does have the feature to set lists as inactive, which means > no email is distributed through them. They can later be reactivated.) > > Your comments on the usefulness of the SFPUG list are pretty surprising. It's not surprising, but it is incomplete in a crucial detail. > If SFPUG works well without a list, why do other PUGs need one? It doesn't work without a list. The list provided via postgresql.org has been supplanted by the list Meetup.com supplies as part of its service. While Meetup.com provides a feature set and an ease of use which to my knowledge is unmatched in actual working systems, it is a USD 140 annual expense which I incur personally. I do so because I believe it's important that SPFUG have that feature set, and because I can afford it. I do not think it is a good idea to force everybody else starting a PUG incur such an expense. > Maybe mailing lists for PUGs are a thing of the past -- perhaps we > need to be thinking on getting the @postgres twitter account to > re-tweet announcements posted by PUGs, or something like that, more > suited to today's usage of comm channels rather than 1990's. I think it would be great to supplement such lists with twitter, but the lists are used for a good bit more than broadcast announcements. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
> >> Maybe mailing lists for PUGs are a thing of the past -- perhaps we >> need to be thinking on getting the @postgres twitter account to >> re-tweet announcements posted by PUGs, or something like that, more >> suited to today's usage of comm channels rather than 1990's. > > I think it would be great to supplement such lists with twitter, but > the lists are used for a good bit more than broadcast announcements. > I agree with that : Twitter (and also Meetup in a way) are top-down messaging: a few individual are controling the account and broadcasting news to a local user base. This is probably usefull enough in many case, but I can understand that some groups may want to have a more horizontal medium like a mailing list. In this community mailing lists are the place where most of the big decisions are made. When I first got involved and I saw all the mailing lists and how simple it was to join the collective effort, I remembered thinking "wow this is where things happen". I totally understand that for someone who wants to launch a PUG in his/her area, opening a mailing list is not just about getting a communication tool: it's a gesture of recognition. It means you're part of the family. It's having the people you admire telling you : "go for it ! here's your tool !" In my opinion, the community should either make it very easy to open a new PUG mailing-list or simply refuse to create new ones and tell people to go elsewhere.
On 03/02/2015 12:58 AM, damien clochard wrote: > I totally understand that for someone who wants to launch a PUG in > his/her area, opening a mailing list is not just about getting a > communication tool: it's a gesture of recognition. It means you're part > of the family. It's having the people you admire telling you : "go for > it ! here's your tool !" > > In my opinion, the community should either make it very easy to open a > new PUG mailing-list or simply refuse to create new ones and tell people > to go elsewhere. +1 including current user group lists. JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development High Availability, Oracle Conversion, @cmdpromptinc Now I get it: your service is designed for a customer base that grew up with Facebook, watches Japanese seizure robot anime, and has the attention span of a gnat. I'm not that user., "Tyler Riddle"
On 02/28/2015 08:52 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > On 02/27/2015 01:36 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> On 02/24/2015 01:32 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> Josh Berkus wrote: > all nice and clear - but who is going to check whether lists fall under > that termination rule or not on a regular base? Are you volunteering? I don't have the permissions. And this is a task better automated, no? > > Also to put some numbers to this - we currently have 35 PUG lists, out > of those only 5(6 if the cutoff would be 10) would make the cut per the > above rules and only 13(!) had more than a single mail in all of 2014. > There have been only 268 mails in total over all of those 35 lists. Good, we can immediately clean some stuff out then. That's what we want, correct? Also: does that include the non-English lists? If so, I'm surprised. > >> >> One question is: for terminated lists, what is our policy/practice on >> archives? > > dont think we have one Right, I posted here so that we would *create* one. I'm not in a position to *propose* one because I don't know enough about the infrastructure of our archives. >> For example, I'd like to terminate the SFPUG list. Given that we have >> Meetup, RSS *and* Twitter, we really don't need it anymore. However, >> I'm reluctant to delete the archives. > > uh isnt that actually _the_ prime example why we dont actually need more > lists? If a PUG as large and successful as SFPUG does not need one > because there are better ways to coordinate a PUG and make it successful > why are we not promoting those? No, it's not. We need the mailing lists for PUGs which are not successful *yet*. The reason that SFPUG has outgrown its mailing list is that we have other resources: * Meetup.com, paid for by David for $140/year. * Website/RSS feed, paid for by me, $75/year. * Twitter acct., registered by me. Prior to having those things and getting big, our mailing list was *essential* for the success of SFPUG; we used nothing else for the first 6 years we existed. There's also the fact that most of our local folks are very active on the main lists (-hackers, general, etc.) which is the reason why we don't see a lot of discussion and peer-to-peer help on SFPUG anymore. This is not a solution for new PUGs because: * We're not proposing to pay for Meetup accounts for every new PUG. * Meetup is only used in certain cities in the US/Canada, and is unknown elsewhere. It's also not multilingual. * Some people hate Meetup because it's proprietary and external. * We're not proposing to offer website space to all new PUGs. * Twitter is not a substitute for other ways of contact. Now, if you said to me "Josh, I think we should be offering those other things *instead of* mailing lists to new PUGs," then I think that would be a possibility worth discussing. I didn't think the infra team was eager to offer hosted websites for PUGs again, though. Also, I'm only suggesting that we could terminate the SFPUG list *if* I can re-create the list later if something happens to Meetup. If I can't get the list back once it's gone (which has been the de-facto policy in the past), then I'm going to fight to hold onto it. Further, we're not just talking about PUGs; people will also request new mailing lists for other purposes, such as specific development projects.For example, I could see that a pgsql-fpga@ or mailinglist could be useful at this point, except that the involved developers haven't asked for it. Certainly if such a list were requested, we wouldn't tell them to use Meetup. And ... to be blunt, I really feel like a bunch of folks on this thread are discussing this in bad faith; that is, they're looking for any excuse at all to say no to new mailing lists, regardless of other considerations. If that's the case, then please say so now, we can see if this is a majority of the infra team, and if it is, I'll stop wasting my time. > Per the above numbers it is obvious that we dont need more mailing lists > but what we need is a solid set of recommendations on how to run a > successful pug and what tools to use for that (wiki?). > >> >> A second question: what about reactivating lists? >> >> Example: SLCPUG stops meeting and their list goes dead. We terminate >> the list but keep the archives. Two years later, a new community member >> wants to re-organize SLCPUG. Do we have a way to give them a list which >> will archive to the same place? > > dont think there is any technical issue with doing it that way but again > I have some doubts that it is actually needed at all. This is *exactly* what I'm talking about. The reason the infra team runs up against a wall on terminating lists is that list members know that once a list has been killed, the infra team will throw every possible sandbag in the way of reviving it. If you guys were more flexible about reviving lists, then the owners would be more flexible about terminating them. You're digging your own hole, here. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
Josh,
* Josh Berkus (josh@agliodbs.com) wrote:
> On 02/28/2015 08:52 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> >> For example, I'd like to terminate the SFPUG list. Given that we have
> >> Meetup, RSS *and* Twitter, we really don't need it anymore. However,
> >> I'm reluctant to delete the archives.
> >
> > uh isnt that actually _the_ prime example why we dont actually need more
> > lists? If a PUG as large and successful as SFPUG does not need one
> > because there are better ways to coordinate a PUG and make it successful
> > why are we not promoting those?
>
> No, it's not. We need the mailing lists for PUGs which are not
> successful *yet*. The reason that SFPUG has outgrown its mailing list
> is that we have other resources:
>
> * Meetup.com, paid for by David for $140/year.
> * Website/RSS feed, paid for by me, $75/year.
> * Twitter acct., registered by me.
>
> Prior to having those things and getting big, our mailing list was
> *essential* for the success of SFPUG; we used nothing else for the first
> 6 years we existed. There's also the fact that most of our local folks
> are very active on the main lists (-hackers, general, etc.) which is the
> reason why we don't see a lot of discussion and peer-to-peer help on
> SFPUG anymore.
Having people use the main lists is *exactly* what we want to have
happen, in my view. This notion that the PUG lists are good for peer to
peer help is flawed, in my view. Further, I think it's flawed to
encourage people to think of mailing lists as making something
"legitimate." It's not the mailing list but rather the listing on
postgresql.org, in my view at least, that makes something legitimate.
The large conferences which run each year are announced and linked to
from pginfra, but they don't have @postgresql.org mailing lists and the
lists they do have are for announcements, not for peer-to-peer help.
> This is not a solution for new PUGs because:
>
> * We're not proposing to pay for Meetup accounts for every new PUG.
I don't get why not. As I understand it, there are resources available
for people who run PUGs from .US and possibly SPI and $140/yr is not
terribly much. Further, that's for an organizer and one organizer can
create multiple meetup groups, as I understand it- perhaps have someone
who is already an organizer formally support creating meetup groups for
PUGs? Maybe that's something that .US could help with?
We might also ask Meetup if they'd contribute to PG in some way to
address that cost..
> * Meetup is only used in certain cities in the US/Canada, and is unknown
> elsewhere. It's also not multilingual.
I agree that's not ideal but, where it makes sense to use it, it's a
great resource.
> * Some people hate Meetup because it's proprietary and external.
Oh well.
> * We're not proposing to offer website space to all new PUGs.
Web space wouldn't help with this.
> * Twitter is not a substitute for other ways of contact.
This I can agree with, there needs to be something other than twitter.
> Now, if you said to me "Josh, I think we should be offering those other
> things *instead of* mailing lists to new PUGs," then I think that would
> be a possibility worth discussing. I didn't think the infra team was
> eager to offer hosted websites for PUGs again, though.
Josh, we're not going to be able to provide something like meetup
without a heck of a lot of development resources. If you're offering to
build an OSS meetup replacement then we can certainly talk about hosting
an instance for PUGs.
Just providing web space wouldn't be any more useful than the mailing
lists we provide now are to new PUGs, imv.
> Also, I'm only suggesting that we could terminate the SFPUG list *if* I
> can re-create the list later if something happens to Meetup. If I can't
> get the list back once it's gone (which has been the de-facto policy in
> the past), then I'm going to fight to hold onto it.
That's why we can't make progress here- lists can never go away.
> Further, we're not just talking about PUGs; people will also request new
> mailing lists for other purposes, such as specific development projects.
> For example, I could see that a pgsql-fpga@ or mailing list could be
> useful at this point, except that the involved developers haven't asked
> for it. Certainly if such a list were requested, we wouldn't tell them
> to use Meetup.
Let's try to keep the discussion to one topic at a time here.
> And ... to be blunt, I really feel like a bunch of folks on this thread
> are discussing this in bad faith; that is, they're looking for any
> excuse at all to say no to new mailing lists, regardless of other
> considerations. If that's the case, then please say so now, we can see
> if this is a majority of the infra team, and if it is, I'll stop wasting
> my time.
It's not bad faith, it's looking at the current situation and wondering
why in the world it makes sense to add more to what has become a
wasteland.
> This is *exactly* what I'm talking about. The reason the infra team
> runs up against a wall on terminating lists is that list members know
> that once a list has been killed, the infra team will throw every
> possible sandbag in the way of reviving it. If you guys were more
> flexible about reviving lists, then the owners would be more flexible
> about terminating them. You're digging your own hole, here.
Yeah, I couldn't care less about the DCPUG archive. It's more likely a
source of misinformation (as compared to what's current) than it is some
highly valuable resource of information.
Thanks,
Stephen
On 03/02/2015 11:00 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Having people use the main lists is *exactly* what we want to have > happen, in my view. This notion that the PUG lists are good for peer to > peer help is flawed, in my view. The we just lost a whole swath of community. The traffic is just too high and if you expect people to manage their digest settings you have already lost the argument. >> This is not a solution for new PUGs because: >> >> * We're not proposing to pay for Meetup accounts for every new PUG. > > I don't get why not. As I understand it, there are resources available > for people who run PUGs from .US and possibly SPI and $140/yr is not > terribly much. Further, that's for an organizer and one organizer can > create multiple meetup groups, as I understand it- perhaps have someone > who is already an organizer formally support creating meetup groups for > PUGs? Maybe that's something that .US could help with? This is a bit more complicated than that. We (PgUS) certainly can set up a mailman instance but even PgUS now uses Gapps + Groups as it is free for a 501c3. I don't know that I can justify spending hard cash for something that is readily available for free. (We would likely be happy to set up Google Groups under the .US domain though). > > Josh, we're not going to be able to provide something like meetup > without a heck of a lot of development resources. If you're offering to > build an OSS meetup replacement then we can certainly talk about hosting > an instance for PUGs. A mailing list + the ability for there to be a PUGS "event" listing would pretty much provide everything a PUG needs. >> Also, I'm only suggesting that we could terminate the SFPUG list *if* I >> can re-create the list later if something happens to Meetup. If I can't >> get the list back once it's gone (which has been the de-facto policy in >> the past), then I'm going to fight to hold onto it. > > That's why we can't make progress here- lists can never go away. > >> Further, we're not just talking about PUGs; people will also request new >> mailing lists for other purposes, such as specific development projects. >> For example, I could see that a pgsql-fpga@ or mailing list could be >> useful at this point, except that the involved developers haven't asked >> for it. Certainly if such a list were requested, we wouldn't tell them >> to use Meetup. > > Let's try to keep the discussion to one topic at a time here. > The primary topic is a secondary list server because .org is difficult to work with when it comes to mailing lists. I think it is pretty spot on to mention we have also wanted other types of lists. JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development High Availability, Oracle Conversion, @cmdpromptinc Now I get it: your service is designed for a customer base that grew up with Facebook, watches Japanese seizure robot anime, and has the attention span of a gnat. I'm not that user., "Tyler Riddle"
* Joshua D. Drake (jd@commandprompt.com) wrote:
> On 03/02/2015 11:00 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >Having people use the main lists is *exactly* what we want to have
> >happen, in my view. This notion that the PUG lists are good for peer to
> >peer help is flawed, in my view.
>
> The we just lost a whole swath of community. The traffic is just too
> high and if you expect people to manage their digest settings you
> have already lost the argument.
The lists are searchable and they don't have to subscribe if they don't
want. I fail to see how posting to a PUG where they don't get any
response, or a response that's not accurate (I certainly don't monitor
all the lists) is better. People who are interested in the overall
community are *way* more likely to get a better response to whatever
they're asking on -general or -admin than they will from any given PUG
list. The way peer-to-peer help works is by having a large group of
people watching and responding and none of the PUG lists have that.
The DCPUG internal-to-meetup list certainly doesn't provide peer-to-peer
help either and no one complains.
> >>This is not a solution for new PUGs because:
> >>
> >>* We're not proposing to pay for Meetup accounts for every new PUG.
> >
> >I don't get why not. As I understand it, there are resources available
> >for people who run PUGs from .US and possibly SPI and $140/yr is not
> >terribly much. Further, that's for an organizer and one organizer can
> >create multiple meetup groups, as I understand it- perhaps have someone
> >who is already an organizer formally support creating meetup groups for
> >PUGs? Maybe that's something that .US could help with?
>
> This is a bit more complicated than that. We (PgUS) certainly can
> set up a mailman instance but even PgUS now uses Gapps + Groups as
> it is free for a 501c3. I don't know that I can justify spending
> hard cash for something that is readily available for free. (We
> would likely be happy to set up Google Groups under the .US domain
> though).
You've utterly missed the point of what I was suggesting. Mailman lists
are *not* meetup, sorry. If .US can support *specifically meetup*, then
I think we could get a lot farther along the path of having regular
PUGs because meetup is what people actually use and the meetup based
PUGs, generally speaking, do quite well. PUGs that just have a mailing
list clearly do *not* work out well. If all it took was a mailing list
then why do we have a bunch of defunct ones? Let's look at the actual
evidence instead of what we'd like to have happen.
> >Josh, we're not going to be able to provide something like meetup
> >without a heck of a lot of development resources. If you're offering to
> >build an OSS meetup replacement then we can certainly talk about hosting
> >an instance for PUGs.
>
> A mailing list + the ability for there to be a PUGS "event" listing
> would pretty much provide everything a PUG needs.
I look forward to this OSS-implementation of meetup.
> The primary topic is a secondary list server because .org is
> difficult to work with when it comes to mailing lists. I think it is
> pretty spot on to mention we have also wanted other types of lists.
The pginfra team is *also* part of the advocacy and various other teams,
including core. Please do not presume that the discussion carried on
here by members of infrastructure are only from the infrastructure or
resources standpoint. It is not.
THanks!
Stephen
>> This is a bit more complicated than that. We (PgUS) certainly can >> set up a mailman instance but even PgUS now uses Gapps + Groups as >> it is free for a 501c3. I don't know that I can justify spending >> hard cash for something that is readily available for free. (We >> would likely be happy to set up Google Groups under the .US domain >> though). > > You've utterly missed the point of what I was suggesting. Mailman lists > are *not* meetup, sorry. I am not suggesting mailman is a meetup replacement. > If .US can support *specifically meetup*, then > I think we could get a lot farther along the path of having regular > PUGs because meetup is what people actually use and the meetup based > PUGs, generally speaking, do quite well. My point was, I doubt I could convince the board to expense the money when we have GAPPS including Groups and G+ and Events etc... all for free via our 501c3 account with Google. > PUGs that just have a mailing > list clearly do *not* work out well. If all it took was a mailing list > then why do we have a bunch of defunct ones? Let's look at the actual > evidence instead of what we'd like to have happen. I don't disagree that there are a lot of quiet lists (I also agree that dumping lists should be something that should be done). I only argue that creating a list and seeing it if will thrive takes very little energy and creates a more open environment for the community. > >>> Josh, we're not going to be able to provide something like meetup >>> without a heck of a lot of development resources. If you're offering to >>> build an OSS meetup replacement then we can certainly talk about hosting >>> an instance for PUGs. >> >> A mailing list + the ability for there to be a PUGS "event" listing >> would pretty much provide everything a PUG needs. > > I look forward to this OSS-implementation of meetup. We already have it? We have events on the website plus mailing list capability. O.k. granted, we may want a different PUGs event space, I am not sure but that is definitely a topic for a different thread. > >> The primary topic is a secondary list server because .org is >> difficult to work with when it comes to mailing lists. I think it is >> pretty spot on to mention we have also wanted other types of lists. > > The pginfra team is *also* part of the advocacy and various other teams, > including core. Please do not presume that the discussion carried on > here by members of infrastructure are only from the infrastructure or > resources standpoint. It is not. I have no idea to your point here as it has nothing to do with what I said. JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development High Availability, Oracle Conversion, @cmdpromptinc Now I get it: your service is designed for a customer base that grew up with Facebook, watches Japanese seizure robot anime, and has the attention span of a gnat. I'm not that user., "Tyler Riddle"
* Joshua D. Drake (jd@commandprompt.com) wrote: > > If .US can support *specifically meetup*, then > >I think we could get a lot farther along the path of having regular > >PUGs because meetup is what people actually use and the meetup based > >PUGs, generally speaking, do quite well. > > My point was, I doubt I could convince the board to expense the > money when we have GAPPS including Groups and G+ and Events etc... > all for free via our 501c3 account with Google. Can the PUGs make use of that? I use meetup as an example, but if Google provides something comparable, that all the PUGs could use.. > >PUGs that just have a mailing > >list clearly do *not* work out well. If all it took was a mailing list > >then why do we have a bunch of defunct ones? Let's look at the actual > >evidence instead of what we'd like to have happen. > > I don't disagree that there are a lot of quiet lists (I also agree > that dumping lists should be something that should be done). I only > argue that creating a list and seeing it if will thrive takes very > little energy and creates a more open environment for the community. Emailing to a list and getting no response does *not* make for a more open environment, and that's the experience that most users who post to the PUGs has. > >>>Josh, we're not going to be able to provide something like meetup > >>>without a heck of a lot of development resources. If you're offering to > >>>build an OSS meetup replacement then we can certainly talk about hosting > >>>an instance for PUGs. > >> > >>A mailing list + the ability for there to be a PUGS "event" listing > >>would pretty much provide everything a PUG needs. > > > >I look forward to this OSS-implementation of meetup. > > We already have it? We have events on the website plus mailing list > capability. O.k. granted, we may want a different PUGs event space, > I am not sure but that is definitely a topic for a different thread. What we have is not meetup. Perhaps you can convince Magnus or someone to hobble together something which is at least closer to meetup but it's no small task and creating more lists isn't going to change that. > >>The primary topic is a secondary list server because .org is > >>difficult to work with when it comes to mailing lists. I think it is > >>pretty spot on to mention we have also wanted other types of lists. > > > >The pginfra team is *also* part of the advocacy and various other teams, > >including core. Please do not presume that the discussion carried on > >here by members of infrastructure are only from the infrastructure or > >resources standpoint. It is not. > > I have no idea to your point here as it has nothing to do with what I said. To attempt to clarify: your comment was that .org is difficult to work with and, at least to me, it came across as "the sysadmins who run .org don't want to be bothered with creating lists for our worthy users". Perhaps you intended ".org" as "everyone involved" which would be accurate, I suppose, but I don't think it's unreasonable to look at the history of these lists and question why it makes sense to create more as there's no reason to expect anything different to happen with them. Having a curated list of active PUGs (where "active" is at least one meeting every other month, in my view..) and links to information about them would be good, but mailing lists are not that. Seeing as how no one is interested in even reviewing the current list (the first three links, to my eyes anyway, appear to all be to defunct PUGs..), I'd say we have a bigger problem than not providing mailing lists. Thanks, Stephen
On 03/02/2015 12:02 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Joshua D. Drake (jd@commandprompt.com) wrote: >>> If .US can support *specifically meetup*, then >>> I think we could get a lot farther along the path of having regular >>> PUGs because meetup is what people actually use and the meetup based >>> PUGs, generally speaking, do quite well. >> >> My point was, I doubt I could convince the board to expense the >> money when we have GAPPS including Groups and G+ and Events etc... >> all for free via our 501c3 account with Google. > > Can the PUGs make use of that? I use meetup as an example, but if > Google provides something comparable, that all the PUGs could use.. Certainly, it is how WhatcomPUG[1] exists although it isn't tied to PgUS (outside of being an affiliated group). I could certainly talk to the board and see if this is something we are interested (at least for .US based groups). However, if we aren't, there is nothing stopping ANYONE from creating a free (and public) G+ community that is also able to host events etc... 1. https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/116781216881095067633 JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development High Availability, Oracle Conversion, @cmdpromptinc Now I get it: your service is designed for a customer base that grew up with Facebook, watches Japanese seizure robot anime, and has the attention span of a gnat. I'm not that user., "Tyler Riddle"
Stephen Frost wrote: > Having a curated list of active PUGs (where "active" is at least one > meeting every other month, in my view..) and links to information about > them would be good, but mailing lists are not that. Actually we do have a list, curated (mostly) by Jon Katz. What is wrong with that? Is that not backing enough from the postgresql.org website to PUGs? http://www.postgresql.org/community/user-groups/ -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Alvaro,
On Monday, March 2, 2015, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On Monday, March 2, 2015, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
Stephen Frost wrote:
> Having a curated list of active PUGs (where "active" is at least one
> meeting every other month, in my view..) and links to information about
> them would be good, but mailing lists are not that.
Actually we do have a list, curated (mostly) by Jon Katz. What is wrong
with that? Is that not backing enough from the postgresql.org website
to PUGs?
http://www.postgresql.org/community/user-groups/
Check the first few links. That is the list I was referring to as not being curated and current...
I don't mean to point fingers at Jonathan or anyone else but that list has serious issues.
Now, if PUG organizers could update the list with new events and it was sorted by event or something along those lines then maybe it'd be kept current, but my preference would be to have that list linked into meetup for the groups that use meetup somehow and maybe G+ for groups that use that and the sorting by date of post would mean inactive groups would naturally be hidden...
Thanks!
Stephen
On 03/02/2015 07:37 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 02/28/2015 08:52 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: >> On 02/27/2015 01:36 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: >>> On 02/24/2015 01:32 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>>> Josh Berkus wrote: > >> all nice and clear - but who is going to check whether lists fall under >> that termination rule or not on a regular base? Are you volunteering? > > I don't have the permissions. And this is a task better automated, no? well your proposal specifically included the requirement that an admin or the list owner sends a "termination notice" - not sure we want to fully automate that? > >> >> Also to put some numbers to this - we currently have 35 PUG lists, out >> of those only 5(6 if the cutoff would be 10) would make the cut per the >> above rules and only 13(!) had more than a single mail in all of 2014. >> There have been only 268 mails in total over all of those 35 lists. > > Good, we can immediately clean some stuff out then. That's what we > want, correct? > > Also: does that include the non-English lists? If so, I'm surprised. well those numbers are for all lists in the PUG section: http://www.postgresql.org/list/group/6/ (just click into some of the archives to see the sad state of things for yourself if you dont believe me) My argument was mostly that with SFPUG removed (which is part of the "5" lists that are make at least some traffic) we would be down to 4. Based on those numbers I find it very hard to advocate for making list addition easier and even paying money for some secondary service because frankly - nobody actually seems to use them :( Right now I think the mailinglists are actually doing us a disservice because the only impression a new visitor can get from looking at the archives of most of them is "they are dead". > >> >>> >>> One question is: for terminated lists, what is our policy/practice on >>> archives? >> >> dont think we have one > > Right, I posted here so that we would *create* one. I'm not in a > position to *propose* one because I don't know enough about the > infrastructure of our archives. well the actual archive can just keep all the mails - so it is more of a policy decision of whether we want to keep displaying them (or make them searchable or whatever) > >>> For example, I'd like to terminate the SFPUG list. Given that we have >>> Meetup, RSS *and* Twitter, we really don't need it anymore. However, >>> I'm reluctant to delete the archives. >> >> uh isnt that actually _the_ prime example why we dont actually need more >> lists? If a PUG as large and successful as SFPUG does not need one >> because there are better ways to coordinate a PUG and make it successful >> why are we not promoting those? > > No, it's not. We need the mailing lists for PUGs which are not > successful *yet*. The reason that SFPUG has outgrown its mailing list > is that we have other resources: > > * Meetup.com, paid for by David for $140/year. > * Website/RSS feed, paid for by me, $75/year. > * Twitter acct., registered by me. > > Prior to having those things and getting big, our mailing list was > *essential* for the success of SFPUG; we used nothing else for the first > 6 years we existed. There's also the fact that most of our local folks > are very active on the main lists (-hackers, general, etc.) which is the > reason why we don't see a lot of discussion and peer-to-peer help on > SFPUG anymore. interesting - so why is it that only 1/8th(or 15%) of the lists we created so far seem to be able to sustain even a minimum of traffic? > > This is not a solution for new PUGs because: > > * We're not proposing to pay for Meetup accounts for every new PUG. > * Meetup is only used in certain cities in the US/Canada, and is unknown > elsewhere. It's also not multilingual. > * Some people hate Meetup because it's proprietary and external. > * We're not proposing to offer website space to all new PUGs. > * Twitter is not a substitute for other ways of contact. > > Now, if you said to me "Josh, I think we should be offering those other > things *instead of* mailing lists to new PUGs," then I think that would > be a possibility worth discussing. I didn't think the infra team was > eager to offer hosted websites for PUGs again, though. no we are not eager to host websites for PUGs but I also dont think that it is good to run mailinglists just for the sake of it, with the sysadmin team hat on I think we have much more important tasks than running a listserver nobody actually uses (and running mail crap is not _cheap_ from a manpower pov) and with a community hat on I would find it weird for us to spend money on a service nobody will use. > > Also, I'm only suggesting that we could terminate the SFPUG list *if* I > can re-create the list later if something happens to Meetup. If I can't > get the list back once it's gone (which has been the de-facto policy in > the past), then I'm going to fight to hold onto it. hmm do you have any reference where reinstating an formerly existing list was refused? > > Further, we're not just talking about PUGs; people will also request new > mailing lists for other purposes, such as specific development projects. > For example, I could see that a pgsql-fpga@ or mailing list could be > useful at this point, except that the involved developers haven't asked > for it. Certainly if such a list were requested, we wouldn't tell them > to use Meetup. we already had a few such topic/development related lists (like pgsql-cluster-hackers which basically boils down to a meeting coordination list for the meeting at pgcon) so no sure those are going to succeed either. > > And ... to be blunt, I really feel like a bunch of folks on this thread > are discussing this in bad faith; that is, they're looking for any > excuse at all to say no to new mailing lists, regardless of other > considerations. If that's the case, then please say so now, we can see > if this is a majority of the infra team, and if it is, I'll stop wasting > my time. to be blunt as well I find this an offence - some of us are spending a _significant_ amount of time on infrastructure stuff, and this is not at all saying "no to mailinglists", but this is saying that there is no point in creating additional systems that will have a very very low level of usage (and the numbers we have on the current lists are imho proof for that). > >> Per the above numbers it is obvious that we dont need more mailing lists >> but what we need is a solid set of recommendations on how to run a >> successful pug and what tools to use for that (wiki?). >> >>> >>> A second question: what about reactivating lists? >>> >>> Example: SLCPUG stops meeting and their list goes dead. We terminate >>> the list but keep the archives. Two years later, a new community member >>> wants to re-organize SLCPUG. Do we have a way to give them a list which >>> will archive to the same place? >> >> dont think there is any technical issue with doing it that way but again >> I have some doubts that it is actually needed at all. > > This is *exactly* what I'm talking about. The reason the infra team > runs up against a wall on terminating lists is that list members know > that once a list has been killed, the infra team will throw every > possible sandbag in the way of reviving it. If you guys were more > flexible about reviving lists, then the owners would be more flexible > about terminating them. You're digging your own hole, here. again not sure why you are picking on the sysadmin team here - what we should be focusing on is that: * the overall mailinglist traffic on all our lists is declining * 85% of the current PUG lists are dead by your own definition * the most recently requested and granted mailinglists basically were never used: * pgmke (created half a year ago - only a testmail no real traffic) * seasiapug (create Nov 2013 - not a singlemail yet) * triangle-nc-pug (created january 2014 only a single "created" mail from alvaro) If we want help our PUgs in growing we certainly need to provide something, but from all the numbers I see it does not seem that mailinglists is what helps them. This feels a bit like picking on people spelling out the fact that times have changed and what made us successful as a community 20y ago might not be the thing we "really" need today. Stefan
On 03/02/2015 09:58 AM, damien clochard wrote: > >> >>> Maybe mailing lists for PUGs are a thing of the past -- perhaps we >>> need to be thinking on getting the @postgres twitter account to >>> re-tweet announcements posted by PUGs, or something like that, more >>> suited to today's usage of comm channels rather than 1990's. >> >> I think it would be great to supplement such lists with twitter, but >> the lists are used for a good bit more than broadcast announcements. >> > > I agree with that : Twitter (and also Meetup in a way) are top-down > messaging: a few individual are controling the account and broadcasting > news to a local user base. not only that it is also what younger people are simply used to, for a lot of people coming out of university mailinglists are something they have never come across (as a primary communication tool) > > This is probably usefull enough in many case, but I can understand that > some groups may want to have a more horizontal medium like a mailing list. > > In this community mailing lists are the place where most of the big > decisions are made. When I first got involved and I saw all the mailing > lists and how simple it was to join the collective effort, I remembered > thinking "wow this is where things happen". sure but I will again point out (as said elsewhere on the thread) that the overall mailinglist traffic (across all lists) is declining for years now and that specific to PUGs none of the recently (where recently is like 2 years) created lists have any traffic. So my point is that we are promoting/discussing the wrong thing here.... > > I totally understand that for someone who wants to launch a PUG in > his/her area, opening a mailing list is not just about getting a > communication tool: it's a gesture of recognition. It means you're part > of the family. It's having the people you admire telling you : "go for > it ! here's your tool !" that is _exactly_ the point, people dont want a ML because they need one but because they think the need recognition, and _THAT_ is what we need to fix and what we should focus on Stefan
On 03/02/2015 12:02 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:> * Joshua D. Drake (jd@commandprompt.com) wrote: >>> If .US can support *specifically meetup*, then >>> I think we could get a lot farther along the path of having regular >>> PUGs because meetup is what people actually use and the meetup based >>> PUGs, generally speaking, do quite well. >> >> My point was, I doubt I could convince the board to expense the >> money when we have GAPPS including Groups and G+ and Events etc... >> all for free via our 501c3 account with Google. > > Can the PUGs make use of that? I use meetup as an example, but if > Google provides something comparable, that all the PUGs could use.. I have found Google Groups and Google Events to be unusable for PostgreSQL project purposes. The feature set is deficient, and the UI is truly horrible. Plus, you know, ToS. Maybe my Google-Fu is insufficient. However, that begs a broader point: why are we intent on pushing stuff for the community off onto an external proprietary resource we don't control, and where it's not clear whether it's really associated with the project or not? If I proposed that we should stop maintaining git.postgresql.org and use Github instead, I know the answer I'd get. I don't have a solution here; I'm using Meetup because we don't have a way to supply that functionality on postgresql.org, let alone the network effect. But it's an open question, and I'm more than a little concerned about the possibility of folks with the sole admin account for something vanishing. Maybe the answer is a Google Apps around and a Meetup Account controlled by a designated community team. I'm not sure. On 03/02/2015 12:42 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > On 03/02/2015 07:37 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> On 02/28/2015 08:52 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: >>> On 02/27/2015 01:36 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: >>>> On 02/24/2015 01:32 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>>>> Josh Berkus wrote: >> >>> all nice and clear - but who is going to check whether lists fall under >>> that termination rule or not on a regular base? Are you volunteering? >> >> I don't have the permissions. And this is a task better automated, no? > > well your proposal specifically included the requirement that an admin > or the list owner sends a "termination notice" - not sure we want to > fully automate that? Sure, why not? The only purpose of the termination notice is so that existing subscribers won't be surprised when the list is gone. It's not a warning to let them revive it. >> Prior to having those things and getting big, our mailing list was >> *essential* for the success of SFPUG; we used nothing else for the first >> 6 years we existed. There's also the fact that most of our local folks >> are very active on the main lists (-hackers, general, etc.) which is the >> reason why we don't see a lot of discussion and peer-to-peer help on >> SFPUG anymore. > > interesting - so why is it that only 1/8th(or 15%) of the lists we > created so far seem to be able to sustain even a minimum of traffic? Because starting a PUG is hard. I'm arguing that we shouldn't make it harder by denying easily-available resources. But maybe the resources we should offer aren't mailing lists ... > If we want help our PUgs in growing we certainly need to provide > something, but from all the numbers I see it does not seem that > mailinglists is what helps them. Thank you for those numbers. > This feels a bit like picking on people > spelling out the fact that times have changed and what made us > successful as a community 20y ago might not be the thing we "really" > need today. Well, for SFPUG, we moved from email to Meetup + Website/RSS + Twitter.I would still be using the mailing list if we didn'thave all three of those things. From the discussion it sounds like I should start a new thread, here or on advocacy, about what resources would really help get PUGs started. I'd like to have both folks from WWW and Advocacy on it, though; would a crossover thread work, or are most of y'all on advocacy? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
Le 02/03/2015 21:48, Stefan Kaltenbrunner a écrit : > On 03/02/2015 09:58 AM, damien clochard wrote: >> >>> >>>> Maybe mailing lists for PUGs are a thing of the past -- perhaps we >>>> need to be thinking on getting the @postgres twitter account to >>>> re-tweet announcements posted by PUGs, or something like that, more >>>> suited to today's usage of comm channels rather than 1990's. >>> >>> I think it would be great to supplement such lists with twitter, but >>> the lists are used for a good bit more than broadcast announcements. >>> >> >> I agree with that : Twitter (and also Meetup in a way) are top-down >> messaging: a few individual are controling the account and broadcasting >> news to a local user base. > > not only that it is also what younger people are simply used to, for a > lot of people coming out of university mailinglists are something they > have never come across (as a primary communication tool) > Assuming this is what younger people do, it does not change the fact that the PostgreSQL community relies on mailing lists. If we want to get more people involved in this community, we need to drag them to the mailing lists. Or transfer the pgsql-hackers threads to twitter :-) For many users, PUG and meetup is the first step towards contributing. When we tell people to make this first step on google groups, meetup or whatever, it makes things harder for them to get more invovled afterwards. >> >> This is probably usefull enough in many case, but I can understand that >> some groups may want to have a more horizontal medium like a mailing list. >> >> In this community mailing lists are the place where most of the big >> decisions are made. When I first got involved and I saw all the mailing >> lists and how simple it was to join the collective effort, I remembered >> thinking "wow this is where things happen". > > sure but I will again point out (as said elsewhere on the thread) that > the overall mailinglist traffic (across all lists) is declining for > years now and that specific to PUGs none of the recently (where recently > is like 2 years) created lists have any traffic. > So my point is that we are promoting/discussing the wrong thing here.... > I was not aware that the overall traffic is decreasing. It's probably a discussion subject on itself. Do we consider this decline as a problem ? Do we need need to "fix" that ? If that's a problem, I can't see why we should try to open new lists. We can't complain that the traffic is declining and at the same time refusing to open new channels... To give you my experience, over the last 3 years I have opened several mailing lists (mostly on google groups) for PostgreSQL related projects (namely PG MAG, pgBadger, POWA, OPM, ...). Some of them are active, some of them have a low traffic but are useful, some of them are dead. I didn't even bother asking for a mailing list on the .org infra because I already knew I would lead me to an endless trail of justifications. Again I'm not arguing for opening new mailing lists at any cost. I'm just saying things should be clear : If we don't want to open new lists, let's just tell clearly to newcomers to go elsewhere and watch the overall traffic decline...
Josh,
* Josh Berkus (josh@agliodbs.com) wrote:
> Maybe my Google-Fu is insufficient. However, that begs a broader point:
> why are we intent on pushing stuff for the community off onto an
> external proprietary resource we don't control, and where it's not clear
> whether it's really associated with the project or not? If I proposed
> that we should stop maintaining git.postgresql.org and use Github
> instead, I know the answer I'd get.
Simply put- because we do not have a tool which we can host that
provides those capabilities today. Mailman is *not* that, as I hope we
all agree. Using the existing event system isn't acceptable from a
policy standpoint (which does make sense). Maybe we can build a new
tool, or add another event thing which is PUG-specific or something
along those lines, but it's a development project and not just hosting.
> I don't have a solution here; I'm using Meetup because we don't have a
> way to supply that functionality on postgresql.org, let alone the
> network effect. But it's an open question, and I'm more than a little
> concerned about the possibility of folks with the sole admin account for
> something vanishing.
I agree that it'd be great if we could have a group that can handle the
meetups.. Is there some "corporate" version of meetup that we, as a
community, might be able to purchase to get group management
capabilities or something along those lines?
> Maybe the answer is a Google Apps around and a Meetup Account controlled
> by a designated community team. I'm not sure.
That might be an option too.
> Because starting a PUG is hard. I'm arguing that we shouldn't make it
> harder by denying easily-available resources. But maybe the resources
> we should offer aren't mailing lists ...
Right, that is where I'm coming from also, mailing lists aren't the
answer here.
> >From the discussion it sounds like I should start a new thread, here or
> on advocacy, about what resources would really help get PUGs started.
That sounds like a good idea to me.
> I'd like to have both folks from WWW and Advocacy on it, though; would a
> crossover thread work, or are most of y'all on advocacy?
I'm on both, at least.
Thanks!
Stephen