Daniel,

My reasoning was that I'd like to keep things simple, and there are
often topics on the border, like the one about using some qserv
tools to partition Summer2013 data. Does it belong to qserv-l?
Does it belong to lsst-dm-db? I am not sure! That is why, (given
that the group is small and we have no users from outside of lsst),
I think it'd be much simpler for us to simply have one list
(note that the entire lsst-dm still have one list, there is
no separate list for data challenges, or apps, etc.
Infrastructure is the only was that shows some life)


Once we have external, non-lsst qserv users, I think we should
open a dedicated list for communicating with them anyway. There
are topics that are lsst-internal (e.g. LDM-135 doc is not for
non-lsst consumption) that we might occasionally discuss.

Yes, I agree in a perfect world we should have several lists:
qserv-core, qserv-admin, Level-1 catalogs, Level-2 catalogs,
lsst-db-general, lsst-db-support, and possibly few others,
although it feels like it might be an overkill for the near
future (but see below...)

If you knew that qserv-focused and other db-focused lists have
exactly the same membership, would you still care about having
a qserv-focused list?

I don't see how to draw a line cleanly. We could try:
"all 100% qserv related topics go to qserv list, all mixed
go to db list", but that would mean that in order to see all
qserv related discussions you'd still need to look at both
lists (additionally, I find it very confusing that our
existing lists are managed by different list servers...).
In either case we need to do some cleanup. I see no reason
for Bill to be only on qserv-l, or AndyH to be only on
lsst-dm-db, and I am sure Mario is surprised we have a qserv
mailing list that he has missed to be on)

Having said all that :), I am happy to try something like:
  - lsst-dm-qserv-core  (managed by lsst)
  - lsst-dm-qserv-admin (managed by lsst)
  - lsst-dm-db          (managed by lsst)
  - qserv-external      (managed at slac)

if everyone would buy into this and try hard to
a) ensure all discussions happen on the mailing lists, and
b) pay attention to what should go where

Jacek




On 09/03/2013 02:38 PM, Wang, Daniel Liwei wrote:
> 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