| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Dave Baum writes:
> [...]
> Todd, its your call on this one. Whatever makes administrative sense.
> The only concern I'd have over leaving it around is possible confusion
> when people try to post to it, or perhaps subscribe to it unaware of the
> general group and then get annoyed that nothing ever gets posted. If
> there's a way to mitigate this potential confusion, then leaving vs.
> archival is a wash in my mind.
Safest thing is a multi-step process:
1. Announce that a new group/list lugnet.robotics.nqc will soon be replacing
lugnet.robotics.nqc (i.e., a "heads-up").
2. [A day or so later] Create lugnet.robotics.nqc and associated web areas
and mailing list.
3. Announce that lugnet.robotics.nqc now exists [sic] and as of now [sic]
replaces lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, which will be phased out quickly but
smoothly (include some of details below as additional "heads-up").
4. Move the e-mail addressee list of old group/list (189 people) over to new
group/list (no special intervention needed by users -- I can do this part
entirely at the server end). Notify people that they may need to update
any e-mail filters they are using (notification as part of #3 above).
5. Remove post-message icons on website for old group.
6. Set the web interface to direct replies (followups) to the new group for
existing messages in old group (to avoid rejected replies to old messages).
7. Set old group to reject new messages (but keep the old group in the NNTP
server for the time being).
8. [A few days later] Remove the old group from NNTP service to avoid the
concerns Dave raised above (but keep the old group fully searchable and
browsable via the web). Someday possibly way later down the road, the old
group/list could conceivably be reactivated (if deemed useful). Thus, an
interesting side-effect of this is that the old group is rendered "dormant"
indefinitely with the option for resurrection rather than "killed"
permanently.
Sound like a plan?
--Todd
[followups to .admin.general]
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: location of NQC group?
|
| (...) Yes, I think that would be a good move. (...) I'd prefer not to proliferate too many newsgropus. Personally I don't think the nqc traffic is presently so high that people need to filter it based on target. Odds are that this would even cause a (...) (25 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
