 |
 |
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