Re: [cobalt-users] Status of the Cobalt Mailing Lists

[SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jeff,
At 07:35 06-05-2004, Jeff Lasman wrote:
> I'd love to see the archives stay online, in fact I'd love to see the
> whole list stay online, but it's a self-serving love; all those
> referrals from my sig help in my site ranking with Google <wry grin>.

I should add a sig to boost my Google ranking. :)  Keeping the archive 
online does not require a lot of maintenance work.

> As far as continuing access is concerned, the archives have already been
> scraped and there are at least two other archive groups now running.
> They've posted here; that's how I found them.  I'll repost them in a
> recap thread later, if necessary.

I have an archive of the archive too and I will be putting it online.  It 
may help one of those lost souls that are still using Cobalt products.

> I agree.  And that's why I'm NOT interested in setting up a list that
> people would choose to join.  I'm only intertested in moving this list,
> with it's members and archives, to another domain name to keep it
> running.

It's up to the subscribers to reach a consensus as to which list they 
should "move" to.  Most people are in favor of having one of the old list 
maintainers run the list.

> Since I do offer Cobalt related services I was very happy when Ryan
> Verner offered to host the lists; he doesn't offer Cobalt related
> services.  I was very happy when Bruce Timberlake told me he'd be
> willing to be the list-owner, since, while he does some Cobalt
> consulting, he's a very helpful and well-respected member of this
> community.

Bruce has been running this list before and he would be the best choice to 
take over.

> I agree with you on this as well.  But I don't see myself as doing that.
> Do you?  Is this a vote for me to not move the list?  Note that if I
> move the list it's only because I decided to do the hard work; the list
> "owner" would be Bruce Timberlake, who previously ran the list while it
> was at Sun Cobalt, until he got laid off there.

No, I do not but you remain a competitor. :)  I don't see a move from Sun 
to a third party happening as it would violate the privacy policy.  If 
people are interested in keeping such a mailing list alive, they should 
subscribe to the new one.  I find it better to let the people decide than 
deciding for them.  I am against a move for those reasons.

> Nevertheless, unless you clarify, I will count your vote for me to not
> move the list.  I'm going to set up a poll this morning and will post
> the poll address to the list later this day.

I vote against the move.  This is not a vote against Jeff.  I am not 
questioning your motives either.

> I'm offering not an alternative, but a plan to move the list.  My list
> will have the same charter to the greatest extent possible, except that
> it will not be owned by a Corporate entity, so some of the actual
> wording of actual documents may need to be rewritten.

Could we have a statement from anyone proposing the run the new list?

> Ryan Verner is offering his resources; I won't be hosting the list.
> Even if I were I wouldn't add advertising taglines; I've been hosting
> lists, both free and paid-for, since the late 1980s.  I've never added
> a commercial tagline to any posts, though I've certainly allowed
> listowners to do so, as is their option.  I ran qube-users for several
> years, and I never added a tagline; in fact since I don't own a qube, I
> almost never intruded; it was a simple gift to the qube community.

I am against adding any advertising tagline as it may be seen as unfair 
competition by the other people offering Cobalt-related services.  We have 
seen discussions previously when someone tried to use this list to market 
their products and services.  Running a mailing list does not incur as much 
traffic as providing downloads.  Please drop me an email if I can help in 
any way.

> In my opinion there are parts of RFC 1855
> (http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html) that should be cause for
> unsubscription if violated; for example "Forgeries and spoofing are not
> approved behavior."

I agree.  I brought this up as it is a subject of discussion every now and 
then.

Regards,
-sm