On Friday 22 August 2008 02:08:12 Tom Horsley wrote: > On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:28:36 +0900 > > Joel Rees <joel.rees@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Because I never thought the list was informative. > > > > This is a perception that needs correcting. > > Actually, when this all started, I took a look at the > announce list archives, and came to the definitive conclusion > that in fact, it really isn't an informative list. > I mean, even the announcement that started this whole > mess can't be called informative :-). > > What we really need is the fedora-disaster list that > comes with a guarantee that no message not related to imminent > peril to all fedora users is ever posted to the list. > I might consider subscribing to that, but really I still > think messages of that nature should be cross posted > to all fedora mailing lists. I do find this attitude strange. There are maybe 15 messages per week from announce, and I can skin through and this 'I need that update' or 'those don't affect me', which saves me a good bit of time. Far more time is wasted on reading speculation on this list. Anne
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
