I can’t say I agree with that. It didn’t take me very long to get used to using Slack.
Ralph > On Oct 14, 2024, at 1:47 PM, Matt Sicker <m...@musigma.org> wrote: > > There’s a very, very small chance I’ll ever remember to visit a website to > find out about what are essentially emails that could have been sent to me. I > have a regular habit of reading email nearly every day, but developing new > habits is unlikely to stick. > >> On Oct 14, 2024, at 14:50, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >> >> Maybe we just need to start contributing to PonyMail to improve the UI to >> eliminate actually needing the email delivered to our accounts. >> >> I am only 1/4 serious about this. There has to be a better solution. >> >> Ralph >> >>> On Oct 14, 2024, at 10:25 AM, Matt Sicker <m...@musigma.org> wrote: >>> >>> I didn’t get the original email in this thread once again, so I think I’d >>> support trying somewhere else to host discussions. Besides archiving those >>> messages into a mailing list, it would be great if the solution provided >>> allowed for email interactivity (e.g., you can reply to the notification of >>> a message and it’s added to the thread appropriately; this is how GitHub >>> notification emails typically work). >>> >>>> On Oct 10, 2024, at 05:40, 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. >>> >> >
