I agree with Anne. :-)
If this is a announcement only list then the settings should be changed.
[Suggestion: Crating a own folder for mails coming from this list to prevent flooding]
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 12:08:54 -0400 From: risker.wp@gmail.com To: listadmins@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [List admins] deleting held messages after 90 days
This makes the assumption that all Wikimedia list administrators have Phabricator accounts. Please don't make that assumption. The overwhelming majority of Wikimedians don't, and there is no reason to believe that mailing list administrators are in the small group that does.
Risker/Anne
On 27 August 2015 at 20:51, Greg Grossmeier greg@wikimedia.org wrote: Can we please move this discussion to a Phabricator ticket or something
else? This list was supposed to be, I thought, only for minimal
administrivia communication.
Greg
<quote name="Daniel Zahn" date="2015-08-27" time="16:08:10 -0700">
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl wrote:
Can you publish a per list breakdown here? What lists had the most messages
waiting for moderation?
Here's some data for all lists that had over 1000.
71729 ./heldmsg-wikiru
66819 ./heldmsg-wikinews
43642 ./heldmsg-maps
40495 ./heldmsg-wikimedia
38696 ./heldmsg-wikifa
37172 ./heldmsg-wiktionary
26928 ./heldmsg-wikimediabe
25267 ./heldmsg-wikimediake
25178 ./heldmsg-wikimedia
21802 ./heldmsg-libraries
21728 ./heldmsg-education
20654 ./heldmsg-wikisk
19982 ./heldmsg-wikifi
18612 ./heldmsg-wikiia
14318 ./heldmsg-wikilb
10470 ./heldmsg-wiktionarypt
10249 ./heldmsg-exyu
8508 ./heldmsg-wikiskan
5672 ./heldmsg-wikihe
5018 ./heldmsg-wikimedianz
4649 ./heldmsg-wikiquality
4337 ./heldmsg-wikiversity
2885 ./heldmsg-wikibooksde
2381 ./heldmsg-wikimedia
2238 ./heldmsg-juriwiki
1918 ./heldmsg-mailman
1821 ./heldmsg-wikimedia
1705 ./heldmsg-wikipedia
1554 ./heldmsg-wikimediafr
1537 ./heldmsg-infobg
1496 ./heldmsg-wikiar
1353 ./heldmsg-wikimk
1310 ./heldmsg-ruwikiconference
1240 ./heldmsg-wikimediahk
1168 ./heldmsg-wikimedia
1167 ./heldmsg-wikiml
1078 ./heldmsg-ca
we also have: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T110438
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T110609
for more data i have to restore already deleted stuff from bacula, but i can.
--
Daniel Zahn dzahn@wikimedia.org
Operations Engineer
Listadmins mailing list
Listadmins@lists.wikimedia.org
--
| Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E |
| identi.ca: @greg A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |
_______________________________________________
Listadmins mailing list
Listadmins@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/listadmins
_______________________________________________ Listadmins mailing list Listadmins@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/listadmins
On Saturday, 29 August 2015, Steinsplitter Wiki steinsplitter@wikipedia.de wrote:
If this is a announcement only list then the settings should be changed.
The list was formally announcement only (and still should treated like
such just with discussion elements for vital or important issues like this).
Call it an informal announcement list? I changed this due to a lack of other venues for discussion and an overwhelming amount of people wanting to discuss this topic.
John
seriously - this is not announcement 'with discussion elements' any more, but feels like a full discussion list. I agree: stick to the announcements here, and point to another location where people can discuss, please.
For this particular issue, I would suggest moving the discussion to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mailing_lists/Overview
There is also no reason to have this discussion in private, to the best of my knowledge.
Thanks for bringing up the issue, thank you for your opinions. But putting discussions on lists for vital announcements is likely leading to people auto-archiving the list in general (I know I'm tempted to...)
Best, Lodewijk
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 11:23 AM, John Lewis johnflewis93@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 29 August 2015, Steinsplitter Wiki < steinsplitter@wikipedia.de> wrote:
If this is a announcement only list then the settings should be changed.
The list was formally announcement only (and still should treated like
such just with discussion elements for vital or important issues like this).
Call it an informal announcement list? I changed this due to a lack of other venues for discussion and an overwhelming amount of people wanting to discuss this topic.
John
-- John Lewis
Listadmins mailing list Listadmins@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/listadmins
On 30/08/15 14:39, Lodewijk wrote:
seriously - this is not announcement 'with discussion elements' any more, but feels like a full discussion list. I agree: stick to the announcements here, and point to another location where people can discuss, please.
Well, the list wasn't officially given a scope. It was just "created". I was initially annoyed when discovering that the list had the moderator bit set (after they asked us for opinions!), and did check if it was supposed to be announcements only, with no such hint. (ps: if you create another list-admin list for announcements, put "announce" in the name, as is customary).
For this particular issue, I would suggest moving the discussion to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mailing_lists/Overview
It makes complete sense to have a listadmin ml. And I find so benefitial.
There is also no reason to have this discussion in private, to the best of my knowledge.
Surprise, this list is not marked as private: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/listadmins/2015-August/
listadmins@lists.wikimedia.org