[Mailman-Users] Re: Feature Request -- Again
Chuq Von Rospach
chuqui at plaidworks.com
Sat Jun 3 02:11:59 CEST 2000
At 6:35 PM -0500 6/2/2000, David Champion wrote:
>Once again: this is fine if your list admins all have command-line
>access to the server and know python, but the list software's demanding
>those prerequisites is absurd.
first, a basic reality is that priorities are going to have to be
set. If we (and Barry) waqit to release 2.0 until everything
wanted/needed by everyone is done, it'll never ship. So there are
going to have to be decisions on "must have" vs "should have" vs
"nice to have".
second, While I agree that requiring CLI access to be a list admin
isn't a good idea, in reality, the functions being talked about are
fairly uncommon in their use, and so to me, this falls into a "should
have" category, leaning towards "nice to have". Because the work CAN
get done, just not as conveniently, and if a list admin doesn't have
cli access, then the mailman (and/or site) admin can do it for them.
And as someone who supports a large site of mail lists, yes, I DO
know exactly what I'm suggesting here. As site admin, there are times
when you're simply going to have to step in and help out your list
admins -- that's why you're site admin.
Maximally convenient? no. But it works. And it's practical. Of
course, if you can't wait for it, there's another option: start
coding. I'm sure Barry will take submissions of needed
>Paul (and others) -- BOFH tactics are fun, but hardly productive, and
>certainly not worth the saved time. I congratulate you on not working
>in an environment where this is obvious.
Jumping on people for disagreeing with them isn't productive, either.
And neither is belittling someone's opinion just because you disagree
Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui at plaidworks.com)
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq at apple.com)
And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar
and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'"
More information about the Mailman-Users