I tend to agree that this WOULD be a useful feature.  I can't assess it's
priority with other potential upgrades.  We are new to LISTSERV and are
migrating from cc:Mail to WEB based mail.  We have approx. 2500 mailing
lists that are based on a "home grown" cc:Mail dependent system.  Only one
list owner per list.  In addition we have at least another 500 or more
cc:Mail "public - office dependent" mailing lists to convert.  We have
found many instances where multiple list owners, for subscription purposes
would be really handy.



Keith Paquin
Watson Wyatt & Company




"[log in to unmask] (LISTSERV give-and-take forum)" wrote:
>
> Hello all,
> I was expressing today to Lsoft's support personnel my need to have
> what may be called a 'Second-Level' List Owner.
> My idea was to have a second type of List Owner, one  that can't change the
> List Headers but can do things like adding, deleting, changing parameters etc.
> for list members, Error handling and the like. They would have the GET and PUT
> commands not available to them.
> For me it will serve a situation where I need to open many lists (around the
> 1000 figure) for academic courses and I know List owners won't be the kind of
> people who would care too much, or have the time to get themselves knowledgeable
> about changing the list header. If they do, it could be all wrong. Also, this
> would help to split the maintenance work around a list between few people
> without the risk that they change the header file.
> I can think of other benefits to other List owners and site
> administrators alike.
>
> The response I got was that this is probably a needless feature.
>
> I would like to challenge this approach because I believe this is a feature
> that can be put to use by some/many of us.
>
> So... I built two lists: YES-L and NO-L, both at tx.technion.ac.il and if you
> just post a message to any of these lists (no need to subscribe before)
> with the subject 'Yes | No to Secondary List owner' we can count the 'votes'
> and see then if it is indeed a needed/not needed feature.
> To make this a quick vote, please just send to the 'right' list and NOT
> to this list or to Lsoft people, please !
>
> All you have to do is send your mail with the subject as above to
> [log in to unmask]
> or to [log in to unmask] according to what you think about this feature.
>
> YES-L is voting for the idea of a Secondary List owner, NO-L objects it.
>
> Both lists have a WWW interface that can be used (and results of the vote
> inspected there by simply counting the number of messages on each list)
> at http://tx.technion.ac.il/archives/yes-l.html (and no-l.html)
>
> For practical reasons this survey should end on August 31.
>
> Your help and participation are appreciated !!!!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Moshe