IMO having the discussion on Github has very helpful for me. That's just the first place we look for. And if been asked on why was "*this particular change*" was made, I can answer it brought up a discussion on the dev list and the community voted on it.
In a gist, I don't have a problem with the current process or say I experienced a scenario where wasn't able to find why a certain decision was taken. - Avi On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 1:21 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > So I’m not sure what you are actually proposing, since we already do make > important decisions on the list, and that discussing the minutia of every > decision isn’t practical. > > I think it's really a question of the impact it has. In this case changing > the layout of the repo (as I tried to explain here and in the slack thread) > has a huge impact on everyone, takes weeks of effort to implement - you > experienced it yourself - and require people to re-learn how to contribute > (we have 3200+ contributors and maybe 180 of them active in any > given week). And I think it's good to hear what's their opinion is - that's > what the devlist community is about. > > All that I am asking about - let's bring important discussions about > decisions that are affecting both our users and contributors - to the > devlist. Not every single decision. Just the ones that affect pretty much > everyone's job, are difficult to revert and take weeks to discuss, agree > and implement, > > Layout of the repo is one of those cases. > > J. > > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 1:13 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 23 Mar 2025, at 03:44, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > > > > > The thread here was sparked with a slack discussion where TP > > > commented essentially "we should change our layout of folder, I do not > > like > > > the lack of consistency" - in a random slack conversation, that many of > > us > > > could have missed. And I was called out essentially for saying "We've > > been > > > discussing it for weeks on the devlist, please bring it to devlist and > > > let's discuss it there”. > > > > This is where you and I differ. You viewed this as a real proposal or a > > demand for change. I view it as a venting of frustration only. > > > > My tl;dr on this whole thread: yes of course we should discuss important > > or meaningful topics on the mailing list. But I have a very different > view > > on what actually counts as significant. > > > > To take your argument to an extreme (that I know you aren’t proposing, > > it's just for illustration) is that every code change needs to be > discussed > > on the mailing list. Now clearly that is absurd, so there has to be some > > threshold where discussing in a GH issue/PR or Slack is fine. > > > > Is the name of the folder which we keep our source code in the repo > > important? No, it’s just above a bike shed color argument at best. If > > someone wants to discuss it on the list, go for it. In my mind, if > someone > > doesn’t and wants to discuss it on a PR and gets enough feedback there: > > that is also fine to me. The PR speaks for itself, and it is not an > > important historical decision, and arguably: finding the reasoning when > it > > is done in a GH pr is easier than having to search the mailing list > > archive, both are equally as permanent. > > > > So I’m not sure what you are actually proposing, since we already do make > > important decisions on the list, and that discussing the minutia of every > > decision isn’t practical. > > > > -ash > > > > >
