GitHub can be configured to send email notifications. We can route these to, say, `notificati...@logging.apache.org` email address to have our local records.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 2:01 PM Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > I thought this was recently discussed on @members, but now I can't find the > thread! I'm not even sure if it was on @members, which exemplifies the > scaling problem discussed on the list, among other issues: When you look at > PonyMail's UI, there are about 60 internal mailing lists under the ' > apache.org' project! How am I supposed to find anything? Searching my > Gmail > inbox didn't help, but I did not look for more than 30 seconds. Having to > search yet another place... > > This thread I can't find pointed to examples of Reddit like UIs from FOSS > providers. > > I agree that GH rocks. > > One topic that remains and is a must, is that wherever the data lives, it > must end up recorded on Apache-owned resources, which GH is not. > > Gary > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 7:07 AM Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > > I cannot express an opinion without knowing what the replacement is and > > having experience with it. Mailing lists have one great feature - they > are > > easy to search. For that reason anything we choose should be just as easy > > or better. We must also stick to a single medium for formal communication > > for the same reason. > > > > We do have the ability to experiment with whatever we want but votes need > > to continue here until we have ASF approval. > > > > Ralph > > > > > On Oct 10, 2024, at 3:41 AM, Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@apache.org > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > I am generally open to such experiments. I would start with the easiest > > parts, such as users@, and see where it goes. > > > > > > I would advise against mirroring it to users@ behind the scenes, as it > > may cause privacy problems (we need user consensus to mirror it). When a > > user uses GitHub, they know what to expect. > > > > > > As for Discourse, many use that now, but I find it very overwhelming > and > > stressful. I prefer the clean Github discussions approach. > > > > > > I haven't checked against ASF policies but feel positive about this > move > > for the arguments you have given > > > > > > Kind regards > > > Christian > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2024, at 10:58, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > > >> *Abstract:* Modern email system security measures make it practically > > >> impossible for mailing lists to work – many subscribers don't get all > > >> emails. This not only hinders communication, but blocks an inclusive > > >> one. *Shall > > >> we, as Logging Services, experiment with alternatives?* > > >> > > >> *Motivation #1: mailing lists technically don't work* > > >> > > >> Several widely-used email providers (GMail, Yahoo, iCloud, etc.) have > in > > >> the last couple of years enabled new measures (DMARC, SPF, DKIM, etc.) > > to > > >> verify the authenticity of emails. In short, these measures enrich > email > > >> content with checksums and signatures capturing its authenticity. > When a > > >> mailing list system (e.g., ezmlm, mailman) receives such an email, it > > >> performs several changes on its content (adds information about the > > mailing > > >> list, etc.), and delivers it to all subscribers. When the mail server > > of a > > >> subscriber receives such tampered mail, and if that mail server > happens > > to > > >> have earlier shared authenticity checks enabled, it discards the > email, > > or > > >> at best, marks it as spam. > > >> > > >> Ralph, Matt, Piotr stated many times that they don't receive all > emails. > > >> Ralph actually stated many ASF mailing list emails end up in his spam > > >> box > > >> < > > > https://the-asf.slack.com/archives/CBX4TSBQ8/p1728032221080189?thread_ts=1727958807.348019&cid=CBX4TSBQ8 > > >. > > >> Recently we witnessed even Brian Proffitt (VP, Marketing & Publicity) > > >> suffer > > >> from the same problem > > >> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/yfmrpjslcbo5jmsqqpvtok1o6lht11rb>. > > >> INFRA > > >> is crawling with related tickets: INFRA-24574 > > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-24574>, INFRA-24790 > > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-24790>, INFRA-24845 > > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-24845>, INFRA-24850 > > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-24850>, INFRA-24872 > > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-24872>, INFRA-25947 > > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-25947>, INFRA-26171 > > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-26171> – there are > dozens > > >> more. > > >> > > >> This technical difficulty is not only known to us. AFAIK, this is one > of > > >> the main reasons PSF (Python Software Foundation) decided to switch > from > > >> mailing lists to Discourse. Mailman documents several DMARC > mitigations > > >> < > > > https://docs.mailman3.org/projects/mailman/en/latest/src/mailman/handlers/docs/dmarc-mitigations.html > > >, > > >> but I think these are workarounds/hacks rather than well-established > > >> solutions. > > >> > > >> *Motivation #2: ezmlm is dead* > > >> > > >> ezmlm, the mailing list software ASF uses, is dead – it is neither > > >> developed, nor maintained anymore. (Last official release was in 1997, > > >> there > > >> is the `ezmlm-idx` add-on, which later on became a successor > > >> < > > > https://untroubled.org/ezmlm/faq/What-is-the-difference-between-ezmlm-and-ezmlm_002didx_003f.html > > >, > > >> which last produced a release in 2014, and so on. Long, dead story.) > > >> INFRA > > >> maintains a very big, sophisticated set of Perl rules for running ASF > > >> ezmlm > > >> instances. If you look closely at the INFRA tickets I cited above, > some > > >> suggest INFRA to fork ezmlm and fix some long standing bugs, etc. We > can > > >> discuss the possibility of migrating from ezmlm to mailman (yet > another > > >> mailing list software, but one that is still maintained), whether > such a > > >> migration should be practiced ASF-wide or only for Logging Services, > > >> etc. > > >> But eventually, we will still be using a mailing list, and as I tried > to > > >> explain above, IMO, they just don't work good. > > >> > > >> *Proposal #1: Experimenting with GitHub Discussions* > > >> > > >> GitHub is our development bread and butter. We use its tickets, PRs, > > >> reviews, discussions, CI, security & code quality checks, etc. It > works > > >> perfectly and components are integrated well, i.e., you can link > issues, > > >> comments, PRs, CI runs, etc. Users like it too – we all witnessed the > > >> sudden increase in user interactions after migrating to GitHub Issues > > >> and > > >> Discussions. We can configure sections & categories in Discussions > > >> < > > > https://docs.github.com/en/discussions/managing-discussions-for-your-community/managing-categories-for-discussions > > > > > >> to make it serve as our main communication medium. It also provides > mail > > >> notifications and the possibility to respond to them for those who > still > > >> prefer their email client over a browser. > > >> > > >> In short, we can quickly configure Discussions, update our support > > policy > > >> page, and start experimenting with it. > > >> > > >> One can raise the argument that what if Discussions disappear? We can > > >> mirror communication there to a mailing list to be on the safe side. > > Yet, > > >> we need to evaluate the necessity of this. > > >> > > >> *Proposal #2: Experimenting with Discourse* > > >> > > >> We can get a VM from INFRA and manage our Discourse instance. Though, > > >> AFAIC, this will result in a "GitHub Discussions"-like setup with all > > the > > >> integration goodies missing and added server maintenance burden. > > >> > > >> *F.A.Q.* > > >> > > >> *What if GitHub Discussions disappear?* > > >> > > >> In such a case, I presume they will allow us to download the existing > > >> archives. In the worst case, we can decide to mirror the communication > > >> there to a mailing list. Yet, we need to evaluate the necessity of > > this. In > > >> particular, how big of a problem is this at the experimentation stage? > > >> > > >> *How will private communication work with GitHub Discussions?* > > >> > > >> We can create private repositories for internal/private communication. > > >> For > > >> users/researchers wanting to submit & discuss security issues, they > can > > >> get > > >> in touch with us (either via email to `security@logging` or some > other > > >> ASF/INFRA mailing list), we can grant them permissions to collaborate > > >> privately on a repository security advisory > > >> < > > > https://docs.github.com/en/code-security/security-advisories/working-with-repository-security-advisories/about-repository-security-advisories > > > > > >> . > > >> > > >> *Don't the ASF legals require mailing lists?* > > >> > > >> I am aware that several ASF policies require mailing list > communication, > > >> e.g., for voting and such. I first want to establish a consensus among > > us, > > >> and then pitch to the board for exemption as a pilot. > > >> > > >> *Shouldn't this proposal be practiced ASF-wide?* > > >> > > >> This will be a very (very very very, actually!) daunting route to > > pursue. > > >> I'd rather start small, solve our problem first (if we can), and then > > think > > >> about widening the scope. > > > > >
