Re: List traffic

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 19:13 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> But that, IMHO, is the point of the smaller list ... it allows the group
>> on that list to hash out their ideas, and, hopefully, deal with both
>> arguments and counter arguments so that when presented to the larger
>> group, they would then have a more cohesive arg for their ideas ...

> Yes and no. After being on these lists for years, I have kind of been
> moving toward the less is more. E.g; for main list traffic I can see the
> need for two maybe three, that's it:

> hackers
> general
> www

I can see the need for small tightly-focused special lists. www is a
good example, and perhaps pgsql-cluster-hackers is too (though I'm less
convinced of that than Marc is). I agree that we've done poorly with
lists with wider charters, mainly because there is so little clarity
about which topics belong where.

I'd keep -bugs and -performance, which seem to be reasonably well
focused, but I can definitely see collapsing most of the other "user"
lists into -general.

regards, tom lane