[balug-admin] (lists, policies, etc.)

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Michael Paoli (Michael.Paoli@cal.berkeley.edu):

> I suggested setting the number of days such items are held before
> being dropped to 32 - after having noted that most or all of the
> lists were set to 0 (hold "forever"), and that some of the stuff that
> got passed through onto the lists was over a month old (and in some
> cases over 60 days old).   Rick suggested setting it as low as 5, or
> even 3.  I'd guestimate setting it that low should be quite workable
> if the stuff is reviewed and dispensed with "fast enough".

FYI, as of yesterday, I made the judgement call to change it from the
default of 0 (forever) to 7.

> Well, I (and others) have complained about them before, and when it
> happened again, some of that "unfinished" buisness was brought up
> again - seems from earlier stuff we reached agreements on lists and
> policys and usage and stuff, but for the most part I don't think we
> every got it sufficiently formalized (e.g. mostly there are just some
> items in the list discussion(s) and announcement(s), and there was the
> addition of the "admin" list to keep BALUG administrivia likely to be
> uninteresting to most, away from the "talk" list.)

Just as something to warn about (and I'm certainly as guilty of this as
anyone), key information existing only in mailing list threads is likely
to be not apparent when needed.  One really wants to condense such
things down, and record them on a Web page.  (Short stuff can and should
be put on Mailman listinfo pages, in my view, and can cross-reference
longer stuff on ordinary Web pages.)

> As I suggested earlier, probably useful for those of us available and
> interested and/or with a particular stake in these matters, to discuss
> such administrivia at our next BALUG meeting at one of the tables.  I
> think per Rick's mention, it's good to have the "discussion" in e-mail
> or on list, to formalize and document it ... 

I'd add the proviso above.  ;->