On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 11:18 -0500, Kenneth Price wrote: > ----- "John Hinton" <webmaster at ew3d.com> wrote: > > Craig White wrote: > > > > > > If you are going to go to multiple lists, might I suggest that you > > > have 1 system-admins list and 1 general-users list and you can tightly > > > > But I would like a bit more freedom on the sysadmin list. The ability > > to get more in depth on particulars and include discussions of other > > software which interacts with existing systems to aid in going > > further... extending Centos so to speak. > > Do you think that by definition, the "system-admins" list should encompass that freedom? Linux system administration is not limited to bash scripting and configuring Apache virtual hosts, but also includes architecting multi-tiered, multi-faceted, multi-platform environments. I think the label of "system-admins" for a second list is going in the right direction. Maybe something a bit more specific, like CentOS-sysadmin-advanced? Not the best name, but conveys my idea. The understanding on that list is that the application of CentOS in real world environments can and should also be discussed. > > Eh? Yes, no, maybe? ---- since I brought it up, I will elucidate my thinking... There are many users who are drawn to the 'enterprise' aspect of CentOS that are likely maintaining more than 1 CentOS system and use the list for more work related topics and are more put off by the tangential discussions. For obvious reasons, CentOS is not going to call it an 'enterprise' mail list and I was thinking that a list for 'system-admins' says much same thing in a much less competitive way. The second list of 'users' would not need to be held to a tight standard of on-topic discussions and could, should, would embrace those less experienced in open source software customs and etiquette. That said, I'm not sure that we need 2 lists but since Karanbir raised the topic, I thought I would guide it towards what I feel makes the most sense. Craig