I know there are some people who really struggle with the workload of dev@, who would be interested in general project discussion, but feel swamped by JIRA, etc.
I think if there's a chance that we can gain even one more person because dev@ is easier to cope with (and assuming no significant downsides) then it's a worthwhile change. If there's a particularly interesting thread in a JIRA that we want to make sure everyone sees, it should be easy enough to just link to it from dev@. I would say though, with my PMC hat on: I expect all committers to be subscribed to commits@. (Today, as in, right now. Irrespective of this change.) I don't see how a committer can do their job without it. On 4 February 2014 22:40, Adam Kocoloski <[email protected]> wrote: > Tricky. I'm fine with trying it out, but I do wonder how many casual > followers of dev@ would miss the really interesting technical conversations > that sometime happen on code reviews and (especially) JIRA tickets. Not an > easy thing to measure. > > Adam > > On Feb 4, 2014, at 3:53 AM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > >> We should have some success/failure criteria? >> >> Success: >> >> - Conversion continued to happen around JIRA >> - PRs were not ignored (any more so than they already are) >> - Review Board threads were not ignored >> >> Failure: >> >> - Participation/review frequency dropped noticeably >> >> >> >> >> On 4 February 2014 09:37, Dirkjan Ochtman <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Not presupposing the answer here. But perhaps we could run an experiment? >>> >>> You mean, trying it out for a few weeks? >> >> >> >> -- >> Noah Slater >> https://twitter.com/nslater > -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
