On 16/01/2015 11:18, Gilles wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:40:18 +0000, Mark Thomas wrote: >> On 16/01/2015 07:53, Benedikt Ritter wrote: >>> Hi Gilles, >>> >>> 2015-01-16 1:47 GMT+01:00 Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>: >>> >>>> Hi. >>>> >>>> In the discussion that started about RDF, it seems that the >>>> traffic volume is a stumbling block. >>>> [For some time now, it has been a growing nuisance, and the >>>> usual dismissal about filters won't change the fact: Setting >>>> up a filter that will redirect stuff to /dev/null is a waste >>>> of bandwidth.] >>>> >>>> If different ML are created, people interested in everything >>>> can subscribe _once_, and nothing will change for them. >>>> For people who spend a lot of time just deleting dozens messages >>>> and notifications a day, it will be a relief. >>>> >>>> Maintaining community conversation is not a problem: just >>>> create an "all-...@commons.apache.org" ML for things that >>>> need input form a larger audience (like votes). >>>> >>> >>> Personally I don't care. I have filters set up and if we would do the >>> much, >>> I'd simply subscribe to all MLs. >>> I agree that it seems to be a problem for some that the ML has so much >>> traffic. So we should think about this. >>> >>> There are two questions for me: >>> >>> - What about commits@ and issues@? Do we simply route commits and >>> issues to >>> the component MLs or do we want to have separate commit MLs on a per >>> component basis? >>> - How do we want to manage the transition? I think the process we choose >>> for the git migration is a good one. If a component decides it needs a >>> separate ML, they can simply request one. All other components simply >>> stay >>> on dev@ For example I don't see much value in creating a >>> primit...@comons.apache.org ML, simply because there is so low activity >>> right now. >> >> Components with enough activity to sustain separate lists should be >> moving to a TLP. > > So this is again an issue with an "all or nothing" solution?
The point is that long experience at the ASF tells us that umbrellas are bad. There were good reasons that Jakarta was broken up. Commons isn't a new Jakarta yet but discussions that stem from part A of the Commons community wanting to isolate themselves from the rest of the Commons community are a good indication that part A of the Commons community should be looking to move to TLP status. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
