State of common-lisp.net ?
hans.huebner at gmail.com
Mon Jun 17 05:08:19 UTC 2013
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Anton Vodonosov <avodonosov at yandex.ru>wrote:
> Hans, could you estimate from you experience during the last years, how
> man-hours per year it took to admin cl.net?
I spent between 30 and 90 minutes each month running the mailing lists
(bounce processing, user creation, user requests).
[...] So I agree, the current problems are caused by political issue:
> Who "owns" cl.net? Who have right to object to changes or vote about the
> How decisions are made?
My reason to stop wanting to maintain common-lisp.net was political: Drew
came up with a new common-lisp.net without involving me or others. He set
up a new system and infrastructure and then offered me that I could
continue to contribute on that new technology stack he had chosen and set
up. I was not interested, partly because I was not part of the technology
selection process, partly because I did not have time to learn new
technology stack without having a good reason to do so.
The trouble with common-lisp.net is that even though it is a useful
service, it is not of vital importance to the community that uses it.
There are other hosting options, and in particular source code hosting is
something that common-lisp.net's primary purpose used to be, but that most
projects no longer use. The biggest value of common-lisp.net is that it
provides history in forms of URLs and working communication channels, in
terms of the mailing lists. It would be in the best interest of the
community to re-establish those services as they were before the migration
The new mailing list software is inferior to mailman: It provides no web
interface, no archiving that I see, no per-list configurability, no fine
grained moderation options. The change to that new software has been
disruptive to users because subject tagging is no longer done, and new
filters had to be created to get incoming list email sorted away. While
there may be other, invisible advantages of the new software, the
switchover did not happen in the interest of the users.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the clo-devel