Sender: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:13:56 +0100 |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
8bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On 26/09/2012 12:38, Lars Hellström wrote:
> I'd suggest that you initially set up a dedicated e-mail address which
> redirects to LATEX-L.
>
> The rationale for the latter is that in order to establish a convention,
> it is seldom sufficient to just post the rules and set up the
> administrative machinery; one must also raise communal awareness of the
> convention. One of the most effective ways of doing this is to let
> members of the community observe how others are following the
> convention, but that won't happen if traffic goes to a list only seen by
> team members.
>
> The point of having a dedicated email address is that if it later turns
> out that LATEX-L is getting flooded by this (IMHO unlikely, especially
> in view of how much LATEX-L traffic historically varies anyway) then you
> can change the forward to the team list. Or alternatively switch to some
> manner of digest format. Having a separate email address also simplifies
> regularising the postings before forwarding them, e.g. using a specific
> Subject heading to make it easier to search for these messages later.
>
> Lars Hellström
All sounds reasonable, with the only issue being I don't actually have
the ability to do anything about it :-) (I'll need to talk to Rainer).
Assuming it is feasible, what would be a sensible address? My first
thought is
[log in to unmask]
or
[log in to unmask]
An alternative would be to go with the plan that messages are sent to
the team list (which already exists), and that we (I) post a formalised
message to LaTeX-L before adding to the master list, in a similar way to
how CTAN 'new package' announcements are made. Something like
*Subject* Module prefix registration: X
The LaTeX3 module prefix X was registered on <date> with the
following details.
Module name: ...
...
The downside here is that the team (or at least some of us) get the
messages twice. I think that's probably survivable :-)
--
Joseph Wright
|
|
|