Re: Please stop sending Github messages to the ML

[Lowry, Roy K.]

I am one of those who would like to contribute to Standard Name discussions 
without the need to go near Github.


Cheers, Roy.


I have now retired but will continue to be active through an Emeritus 
Fellowship using this e-mail address.


________________________________
From: owner-cf-metad...@listserv.llnl.gov <owner-cf-metad...@listserv.llnl.gov> 
on behalf of Painter, Jeff <paint...@llnl.gov>
Sent: 07 November 2018 22:44
To: Brian Eaton
Cc: e.r.g.quaegheb...@tudelft.nl; cf-metadata@listserv.llnl.gov
Subject: Re: Please stop sending Github messages to the ML


Someone (I forget who) told me that many of the people discussing 
standard_names would not want to deal with the additional complexities of 
Github.



From: Brian Eaton <ea...@ucar.edu>
Date: Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 2:41 PM
To: "Painter, Jeff" <paint...@llnl.gov>
Cc: "e.r.g.quaegheb...@tudelft.nl" <e.r.g.quaegheb...@tudelft.nl>, 
"cf-metadata@listserv.llnl.gov" <cf-metadata@listserv.llnl.gov>
Subject: Re: Please stop sending Github messages to the ML



Erik,



> I don't have a view of the whole setup, so I may be missing some aspects
> that complicate this. But even then, it may be worth the effort.

The piece you're missing is that I'm trying to get Mailman support off of
my plate; not make it a more integral part of the system.  The CF
conventions activities are supported at LLNL, not at NCAR.  The original CF
website which I created at NCAR was moved to LLNL quite a few years ago,
but for reasons I've never understood it wasn't possible, at least at that
time, to support a Mailman server there.  So it stayed at NCAR, and has
been stuck here ever since.

Again, I don't really see why moving all discussion to github wouldn't be
preferable to having discussions on both github and a Mailman list
(wherever that list might reside).  But I'm not a github expert so don't
know whether there are drawbacks to having all the discussions there.



Brian





On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 3:14 PM Painter, Jeff 
<paint...@llnl.gov<mailto:paint...@llnl.gov>> wrote:

It certainly is a hack!  When we set up this two-list system long ago, LLNL's 
lists were managed by Majordomo.  No they are run by LISTSERV.  I don't know 
whether LISTSERV supports flexible topics within the list.

On 11/7/18, 1:58 PM, "Erik Quaeghebeur" 
<e.r.g.quaegheb...@tudelft.nl<mailto:e.r.g.quaegheb...@tudelft.nl>> wrote:

    Dear Brian,


    > I don't believe that 
cf-metadata@listserv.llnl.gov<mailto:cf-metadata@listserv.llnl.gov> is a 
mailman list.  The
    > cf-metadata mailman list (which I administer at NCAR) is
    > cf-metad...@cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metad...@cgd.ucar.edu>.  The LLNL 
server is the one that gets the github
    > notifications and sends them to *mostly* the same people who are members 
of
    > the mailman list.  I say mostly because the membership in these lists is
    > synchronized by hand.  When people sign up or remove themselves from the
    > mailman list, I send this information to Jeff Painter who then makes the
    > changes at LLNL.  We originally set things up like this so that people
    > didn't need to sign up in two places to follow the discussions that were
    > happening on the mailman list and on the trac server at LLNL.  As github
    > has replaced trac the current system was set up.

    I understand the logic, but this sounds like a hack. It seems this can be
    dealt with as follows:

    * You as cf-metadata admin creates topics as needed
    * LLNL list traffic is sent to the cf-metadata list using one or more
    specific topic that people can (un)subscribe (from) to.

    It seems to me such an approach would have multiple advantages:

    * No need to (manually) sync users
    * Users are in control of selecting topics
    * Reverse traffic is likely possible by users sending mail to the
    appropriate topic (how exactly this works, I don't know, but it would
    surprise me if this were not possible)

    I don't have a view of the whole setup, so I may be missing some aspects
    that complicate this. But even then, it may be worth the effort.


    Best,

    Erik


________________________________
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject 
to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any 
reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under 
the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records 
management system.
________________________________