[Baypiggies] New List Admin? (was Re: Fwd: Request to mailing list Baypiggies rejected)

[Mike Cheponis]

<rant>

I propose we remove Aahz from running the BayPiggies list.

I think this is good timing, as we also have a new Program Chair.

Anybody else agree?  Clean house in 2007?

I'm sure Mr. Aahz is a fine, upstanding gentleman, but I've -never- seen him at a meeting, so I don't think he's really particularly interested in this group, except as he can exert power over all of us by capricious decisions.  (the PROPER response to this current brouahah would have been to send Russell PRIVATE email, asking him to re-submit, citing the reasons given.  Or to let it through.)

Now, I could be talked into calming down and realizing this was just a bonehead move by a novice email admin, and give the guy a break.

And, if I recall correctly, a different list member called for a new admin for this list a few months ago...

(Lastly, it is a _really_ bad idea to piss off Russell, a true Python devotee, due to some guy who never shows up at meetings.)

</rant>

-Mike


On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Russell Whitaker wrote:

> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:27:40 -0800
> From: Russell Whitaker <whitaker at google.com>
> To: Aahz <aahz at pythoncraft.com>
> Cc: Python <baypiggies at python.org>
> Subject: Re: [Baypiggies] Fwd: Request to mailing list Baypiggies rejected
> 
> On 1/10/07, Aahz <aahz at pythoncraft.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 10, 2007, Russell Whitaker wrote:
>>>
>>> So, the listowner has made the decision that cross-posting to other
>>> lists is not permitted then?
>>>
>>> Look, I'm trying to get something going that involves both the
>>> capabilities security community and the Python community.  This is
>>> related to a specific attempt to assist both.  This rejection seems a
>>> bit hidebound and unnecessary to me.
>>
>> The problem -- as I already said -- is that cross-posting between mailing
>> lists means that the people who reply to your messages will get caught by
>> the requirement to be a list subscriber in order for their messages to be
>> seen.  (This requirement courtesy of spam.)  It just doesn't work unless
>> a large proportion of people are already on both mailing lists -- and
>> even then it can be irritating as people get multiple copies of messages.
>>
>> There are two reasonably good ways to handle this:
>>
>> * If the topic is particularly relevant to one mailing list, send an
>> invitation to the other mailing list(s) inviting them to subscribe
>>
>
> This is unnecessary and cumbersome.
>
>> * If the topic doesn't have a good home, create a new mailing list and
>> invite everyone to join
>
> In this case, also unnecessary and cumbersome.
>
> OK, if this is the case, then I'm going to scale back my efforts on the part
> of BayPIGgies, and put my efforts elsewhere with less overhead.  Thanks
> for validating my impressions.
>
> -- 
> Russell Whitaker
> Sysops Tools Team Lead
> Google Inc., Mt View, CA
> "gets() remains as a monument to C's continuing support of buffer
> overruns." - Bill Frantz