Jacek,
If there are no lsst db topics that are not qserv topics, then I support
this. But I believe that qserv != lsst db, and want a qserv-focused list.
I think similar membership is not a reason to combine lists. Plus, if
companies X and Y would like to use or work on qserv, is there any
reason for them to care about other lsst-db work?
-Daniel
On 09/03/2013 01:55 PM, Jacek Becla wrote:
> I don't see a good reason to maintain two separate
> mailing lists for lsst-db related discussions:
> - [log in to unmask]
> - [log in to unmask]
>
> so I propose to consolidate them into a single one.
>
> Members of both lists: Jacek, Daniel, KT, Serge, Douglas,
> Fabrice Jammes, Emmanuel Medernac
>
> qserv only:
> - Bill Chickering
> - Emmanuel Gangler
> - Dominique Boutigny
>
> lsst-dm-db only:
> - Andy Hanushevsky
> - Alessio Checcucci
> - Heather Kelly
> - Jonathan Myers
> - Martin Kersten
> - Mike Freemon
> - Mario Juric
>
> I am planning to add Bill, Emmanuel and Dominique to lsst-dm-db,
> get rid of qserv-l, and check with Heather/Jonathan if they
> want to stay.
>
> Any reservations, objections or comments?
>
> Jacek
>
> ########################################################################
> Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
>
> To unsubscribe from the QSERV-L list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=QSERV-L&A=1
########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
To unsubscribe from the QSERV-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=QSERV-L&A=1
|