I'm afraid I disagree.
All of my dozen Mailman instances run on shared servers. I have no control over the release/distro on which I am hosted. But my providers have a bazillion (est.) customers running Mailman2 and, for a number of reasons, are not terribly eager to force us all to convert to Mailman3. By all reports, it is not an easy migration, nor are all features supported. From their standpoint, maintaining a stable, if backlevel, Python2 to support MM2 is merely a matter of DASD, with far lower support costs than moving to Py3/MM3.
I think Jim's conclusion of MM2's continued viability is valid, and the idea of having a subset of the dev team continue to support/enhance it is a good idea. And I like the "Classic Mailman" moniker. :-)
If only I had the skills to assist him, but I don't think he has any need for IBM Assembler and Rexx expertise. :-/
-Chip-
On 8/26/2020 11:05 AM, Odhiambo Washington wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 16:35, Jim Popovitch via Mailman-Users < mailman-users@python.org> wrote:
Hi Folks, So, I have volunteered to spearhead an effort to add one or two more people to the Mailman Coders group[2] in order to vet and approve new features that continue the long tradition of providing value to Mailman 2.x. Who's with me on this? I am not a developer at all and will never be one, but seeing as Python2.x is being dropped soon in most platforms and mailman-2.x relies on it, it only makes sense for me that efforts are made to better mailman-3.x and let 2.x go away slowly.