Comments inline On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 13:30, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: > > This is a simple task. I did not think it would be a big deal.
Agreed. It is a simple task and need not be considered a big deal. I only take issue with the previously unsaid assumption around using commits@, and the seeming kneejerk acting upon it without stated timeline or opportunity to discuss. There is a simple fix to address this. If for example you had sent a mail a few days ago, containing a lazy consensus statement around what specifically you were planning to do and when (request on Wednesday that they be moved to commits@) and lots of folks agreed or noone disagreed, then there was every chance I wouldnt have sent any mail on the subject at all. As it happens, I do disagree with the use of commits@, so once I saw that was what you had already requested without saying that previously, I emailed to say so. If everyone else thinks the PR comments belong on commits@, then thats fair enough for me. > Those > gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone just filters them out). Although not really important here, for completeness, as I have said I wont actually filter them out. After we move them to another list, I'll filter these mails back to the same place they go currently alongside the dev@ content (and did similarly when the JIRA mails moved over to [email protected]). >I don’t see a point in keeping them on dev list. I can filter them out. But > that doesn’t make it easy on non committees looking at our list. > I didnt say they have to stay on dev@. I would personally leave them there, as it seems several others would, but to be clear I have been mailing today entirely on the basis that they will be moving. > I updated the JiRA accordingly. I think the name is sensible enough. > What you think is not necessarily a consensus though, and it is good to give at least the chance for other people to say what they think. It doesnt need to be some huge elaborate process, a simple "I will ask tomorrow that they redirect to <foo> if noone objects" might have sufficed if everyone thought <foo> was a great name or didnt actually care what its called. The traffic has been where it is for years, so taking some hours/days to openly agree on specifically where it goes doesn't seem out of the way. Especially if its a new list that will be around for years. > If you ok with everything we can move ahead. On that case update the JIRA. > If not please let Me know. I'm not ok proceeding yet as its not just my decision or just your decision, and I dont think a sufficient discussion has occurred or suitable lazy consensus opportunity been given yet. As I've said, I think issues@ is preferable to commits@ if reusing an existing list, and what I would personally go with. If others think commits@ is the way to go, thats fine. If a new list is preferred instead then we should agree what it is to be called, and once censensus (lazy or not) is reached, create it. After one of those approaches is settled on, we ask infra to proceed with the redirection to the target list. > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:54 AM Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to suggest > > specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a suggested > > email address of [email protected]? > > > > Robbie > > > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > I think we should stop asking infra to do things before they have been > > > fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the > > > JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called? Followed > > > by, why didnt we create it already using https://selfserve.apache.org? > > > > > > Personally, I would just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem > > > like issues traffic, and I think we have enough lists. > > > > > > If enough folks think we should use a new list though, it would be > > > good to agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy consensus > > > statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to update > > > things to use it. > > > > > > Robbie > > > > > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Lazy consensus was for the overal move. I didn't think on the list > > > > name (I thought it was ok on just moving it there) > > > > > > > > I will change the JIRA to be on its own list. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24 AM Robbie Gemmell < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear > > period > > > > > to agree/disagree with your intended action before you initiate it. > > > > > This mail thread had obviously been around for a number of days, but > > > > > discussing 'should we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as > > > > > discussing 'I'm doing this tomorrow unless further discussion > > suggests > > > > > otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the > > > > > details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really properly > > > > > discussed the destination list: 'new list' or 'separate list' was the > > > > > terminology you used throughout the thread and commits@ was only > > > > > mentioned as a 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread. > > > > > > > > > > I'm -1 on using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on PRs > > > > > belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where the > > JIRA > > > > > traffic was moved previously and between those two lists I'd say that > > > > > makes a far better destination, if it isn't to be a completely new > > > > > list. > > > > > > > > > > If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be it, but we > > should > > > > > actually discuss that. I have posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra to > > > > > hold off moving things while we do so. > > > > > > > > > > I'm -0 on the overall move as I too think the messages are fine where > > > > > they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same applies > > in > > > > > reverse; if we move them I'll typically just filter them back into > > the > > > > > same place they were going originally. > > > > > > > > > > Robbie > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm assuming consensus and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox > > > > > > messages to the commit message. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don’t get me wrong. I can do with filters personally. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just think this could be more friendly for new people joining > > in. Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone just > > joining) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What about this. We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages to > > a new list. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly anyways. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If people want those they can subscribe to the new list. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than adequate, > > and avoid me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions, it will > > all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. > > > > > > >> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic < > > [email protected]> Date: 15/02/2019 22:39 (GMT+00:00) To: > > [email protected] Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github messages > > on a separate list The thing is. I can do fine with filtering. So in a > > way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone else.So I am putting > > myself in the shoes of someone coming on board now. Justtrying to make it > > easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:58 AM Christopher Shannon < > > [email protected]> wrote:> I am +0 on this because either > > way is fine with me as it's really easy to> do mail filters on either > > addresses or on subject tags.>> There is a ton of Github traffic right now > > obviously so to make it> manageable I have filters and labels setup on my > > gmail account so that> GitHub related messages get tagged with one label > > and everything else is a> different one which solves the issue. I imagine > > most email providers have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at > > 3:20 AM Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> >> wrote:>> > People > > are probably missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> > On Fri, > > Feb 15, 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <[email protected]> wrote:> >> > > > > Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to contribute> more> > > > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think that the Github > > messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > > requires constant > > cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss discussions> > > about subjects > > that interest me and for which I would like to help.> > >> > > On Fri, Feb > > 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert Suconic <> > > [email protected]>> > > > > wrote:> > >> > > > I work on this dev list on my daily basis. We had > > some members here> > > > suggesting doing this in the past and we decided > > to let just people> to> > > > filter out stuff with filters. Etc.> > > >> > > > > > But this doesn’t make easy to recruit new open source devs.> > > >> > > > > > I just heard from a guy who only subscribed users list because there> > > is> > > too> > > > much traffic.> > > >> > > > Github is easy enough to > > follow. So I propose we move GitHub> comments> > > to a> > > > separate > > list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could leave this list for more generic and > > important discussions.> > > Such> > > > as the web site. Architectural > > decisions. Releases. And eventually> > even> > > > codes but without the > > clutter of github.> > > > --> > > > Clebert Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> > Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Clebert Suconic > > > -- > Clebert Suconic
