Ralph Corderoy wrote: > Would you consider the groff list suitable if the list's owners and > general population of subscribers were happy? Seems a shame to fragment > the small, fledgling community.
This was, in fact, our first opinion. But we finally thought it would be annoying for the groff community to receive mails about technical issues which does not concern groff. Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Given how many people already posted variations on this > theme: The rash spectator might already jump to > conclusions regarding the predominant feeling of the > <groff@gnu.org> population... We are both very happy to read that, because our onliest community is the groff community. But let be sure that everyone understand what's going on: There's first, a pending technical discussion: Since Carsten is fixing Heirloom troff, Utroff now mostly rely on his work, and we will probably have to discuss about Heirloom bugs and utroff issues on the groff list, and we will maybe invite our potentials users to do so. There is, secondly, an observation: We are not the onliest fool outside of groff. There are some Heirloom users on this list, Ali Gholami Rudi announced great improvments on Neatroff a few weeks ago, and the Plan9 community is happy to receive Carsten bug reports and patches. But the non- groff users and workers are uncollected so that they're hard to see. I'd be happy to see them more. There is, thirdly, a simple goal: help the development of the various projects around Troff. And the simple thing to do for that is to encourage discussion between these projects, even if they don't share code. For sure, all this is not a big deal for the Groff mailing list since it only concerns a few people, and so, a few messages. But it's another goal than the Groff development. That's why I think it's not a so easy decision. Cheers, Pierre-Jean.
