Re: [cobalt-users] Re: Have I just gone insane about (moving) these Lists?

[Jeff Lasman <blists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Monday 10 May 2004 01:26 pm, Bruce Timberlake wrote:

> Jeff et al. had been considering "forcibly"
> signing up email addresses, which have posted to the Sun lists in the
> last 3-12 months, onto the new lists.

I'm not sure there's any "et al".  I know that's the way I've moved 
lists in the past when the original email addresses were no longer 
available.

However, I decided against this by the time I set up the poll.

I did offer a place in the poll for the option:

<snip>
Yes, but don't send me anything unless I subscribe at the website
<snip>

Even one "yes" vote on this poll meant I couldn't do it, even if I 
wanted to, because I couldn't copy over one address from someone who 
didn't want me to.

The poll (http://65.58.240.229/) has two yes votes for that option.

> I think this would not be the right thing to do, although it *would*
> provide a smoother transition for folks who might not realize what's
> coming (although you'd think with the amount of traffic on the lists
> in the last 10 days that they'd realize *something* was happening!).
> As far as I know, that will *not* be happening.

It won't unless you or Ryan plan on doing it; I have NO plans to do it; 
I'd abandoned those plans some time last week when it appeared at least 
a few people would object.

That _is_ what moving a list is, though.  It's making it transparent to 
the users; on Friday they get the last post from the old address, and 
on Saturday they get the new post from the new address.  It now appears 
that won't be happening.

> So there are "mirror" lists (cobalt-users, -developers, -security,
> -announce) now set up and hosted by Ryan Verner under the qbalt.com
> domain. And there is the cobaltfacts list, which was started a year
> or so ago in response to the Sun lists' possible demise at that time.
>  Personally, I'm a member on all of them.  And if there are any other
> lists, we should get that info out as well.

Mirror lists are _not_ the same as moving lists.

> Ultimately I think some consolidation will take place; for now,
> there's no harm in having "too many" lists.  It makes it more likely
> someone who needs help will stumble across one of them.

If I'd decided it was reasonable to move the lists; my original plan, we 
would have started with probably over 1,000 email addresses subscribed 
to cobalt-users; I don't know how many subscribed to the others; I 
hadn't gotten that far by the time I gave up on the conversion effort 
and deleted my files.

The poll has a total of 92 votes, and when I spoke to Bruce earlier 
today he said that was approximately how many people had subscribed to 
cobalt-users.

None of the passwords Ryan has given me work for me, so I can't check 
for myself.

But the small numbers as compared to the number of people who posted to 
cobalt-users during the last three months is why I don't believe the 
new lists (any of them) will really be successful in terms of helping 
people; at least not as first.

> I agree that having one mega-portal with PKGs, HOWTOs, forums,
> mailing list archives, etc. would be Cobalt utopia. Heck, *any*
> community would love to have a resource like that I think! But I just
> don't see how it can be done.

Frankly, I'd rather see the webring succeed; with a "frontpage" with all 
the members included for direct jumps.

> But I think most
> people who are savvy enough to come up with original content on their
> own also want to put that info up at their own domain, not "give" it
> to someone else... it's an ego thing, for sure.

It's much more than an ego thing; it's a "responsbility" thing as well.

That's why I think the webring the best way to handle it.

Jeff
-- 
Jeff Lasman, nobaloney.net, P. O. Box 52672, Riverside, CA  92517 US
Professional Internet Services & Support / Consulting / Colocation
Our blists address used on lists is for list email only
Phone +1 909 324-9706, or see: "http://www.nobaloney.net/contactus.html";