I'm not crazy about having to bounce around sections of various repos in addition to monitoring emails, which has to be done anyway. It's _another_ thing to lose track of :-( Having a repo just to use the discussion feature feels like a hack.
I wish I could find the thread about new reddit-like FOSS UIs on one of the @apache.org lists... I feel like we should piggy back this discussion on that. Gary On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 3:02 AM Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci.invalid> wrote: > That is something we can decide together: > > 1. Have project-specific discussion repositories (i.e., Log4j users will > use `logging-log4j2`, LogNet users will use `logging-log4net`, and so > on) > 2. Have a shared discussion repository (e.g., we can create > `logging-discuss` repository and create `General`, `Log4j`, `Log4Net`, > etc. > sections there) > 3. Have project-specific discussion repositories (`logging-log4j2`, > `logging-log4net`, etc.) and also a shared one (i.e., `logging-discuss` > with only `General` section) > > My point is, we can configure GitHub Discussions to suit our needs. But, > are we willing to take that step? > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 11:36 PM Robert Middleton <rmiddle...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > The one problem I see with Github is that as far as I am aware > > discussions are on a per-repository basis, so unless we have a bare > > repository with everybody subscribed to it there's no way that I'm > > aware of to share information. For example while most of this mailing > > list is log4j specific, we also have log4cxx and log4net discussions > > happening on here and we can to some extent share resources or > > knowledge between the projects. > > > > -Robert Middleton > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 9:44 AM Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci.invalid> > > wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
