[META-SIG] whence db-sig?

[David Ascher]

> >I'm coming to agree (with whoever suggested it) that it would be a good
> >idea to retain SIGs after they've satisfied their goals, if they're
> >going to be useful for answering questions.  
> 
> 	That's a big IF; what if no one's reading the SIG anymore?  If
> a SIG becomes quiet, the active posters will probably stay subscribed,
> but no one new will join, and as the active posters change e-mail
> addresses (and forget to resubscribe to a list they haven't seen a
> message from in months), the readership will slowly drop.  

But what's the cost?  I've kept LISTSERV lists alive for a long while
after issues died out, and apart from the spamming problem, there's no
real cost (as long as the people running the list server don't mind).

> >subject at issue?  Plus, sigs often have artifacts - eg pythonwin stuff
> >- that need a place.  Why not keep them around?
> 
> 	Then there should be a page under software for that stuff, or
> the maintainer should have a page on starship for it.  It's not very
> nice to make people hunt around the SIG pages looking for software.
> ("Go write a locator, then".  I know, I know... :( )

The most important artifact of a list is the archive of messages, which I
think we all agree should be kept in some way or other.  But things like
the DB API should belong on python.org, not starship. 

On the same topic -- what's so bad about the hypermail archive of the
mailing lists that it's not available by default from each SIG page?  I
use it all the time, but I keep having to look for it on the main SIG
page, as opposed to where I'd expect to find it (I know, I need to rewire
a few neurons).


_______________
META-SIG  - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists

send messages to: meta-sig@python.org
administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org
_______________