Exactly, vote taken. Done.
Preference was not even close.
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Carol Bean <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Just no. Vote taken. Preferences noted. Done.
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 15, 2012, at 4:50 AM, Graham Triggs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > On 6 August 2012 13:19, Ed Summers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> 150 people responded about whether jobs.code4lib.org posting should
> >> come to the discussion list:
> >> yes: 132
> >> no: 10
> >> who cares: 8
> >> 93% in support or agnostic seems to be a good indicator that the
> >> postings should continue to come to the list for now.
> > I'm not entirely convinced about that assessment. I quite readily
> > agree that the jobs should be posted to *a* mailing list, I'm not so
> > sure that it should be this mailing list.
> > It's been discussed about filtering the jobs sent to the list, but I
> > already filter the code4lib mailing list into a tag. It's been a bit
> > of a faff, but I've subdivided the filtering so that I can get the
> > messages sent from jobs@... to go to a different tag. But then Ed
> > replied to one, so now it appears in both tags, and because I'm using
> > Gmail, it takes the whole thread with it.
> > So filtering really isn't a solution.
> > Rather than just asking whether jobs should come to this mailing list,
> > maybe we can ask whether a separate mailing list should be set up,
> > specifically for jobs. The two mailing lists could be cross promoted
> > (e.g. a standard footer), and people can choose whether they want or
> > don't want to receive them. And we can still have
> > discussions/follow-ups about those jobs on that mailing list.
> > Even though the vast majority of the postings aren't applicable to me,
> > I would probably still sign up to a separate jobs mailing list as it
> > is of interest - but I would at least then be able to keep that
> > separate from the main discussions, which is something I can't
> > effectively do right now.
> > G