Re: Relocation of mailing list to Google Groups + rant

On Wednesday 16 May 2007, Sanford Dickert wrote:
> > I vote against this and the reasons are as easy: Google (groups) has
> > nothing to do with Open Source, Data or Standards and their services
> > also have technical problems (I don't want to blame them, but that's the
> > situation). 

I would very much concentrate our services in one place. SF.net does our SVN, 
has forums, mailing lists, basically all we need.

<snip>

> Actually, google has been a supporter of open source efforts for quite some
> time. 

They also fail to have any interest in chemistry what so ever. Even when it is 
indexing chemistry.

> Their news service has nothing to do with the google groups, and 
> they have been steadily improving this service (full disclosure: I am
> personal friends with the lead engineer at gGroups and was heavily involved
> with eGroups).

If you can get Google to provide proper support for indexing InChIs or 
chemistry in general, it could be tempting to have a BO group with Google.

> > I don't understand, why accessing a mailing list or a newsgroup shall be
> > a barrier for people wanting to join an (also) technically oriented
> > project? Why do you think, you wouldn't have the problem, when you host
> > the discussion forum via Google Groups service?
>
> The reason is that gGroups allows for easy click-thru  joining - and offers
> other ways of joining WITHOUT having to become a member of google or google
> Accounts (e.g.  you can add your email address to the list without signing
> up for google Accounts)

How is that different from the click-through on SF when registering with a SF 
mailing list?

> With gGroups, you should be able to set moderation such that you have total
> control over who joins, who posts, etcetera.

Same on SF. SF also provides archives which people can browse.

Egon

-- 
e.willighagen-FT9nftu9LUxGKl9A47OLhQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Blog: http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/
GPG: 1024D/D6336BA6