-1.  (changed from -0.9)

seems more like a strategy (whether intentional or on accident) to *not*
have design discussions on dev by flooding it with noise and then later
claim it was discussed, even though you would have to sift through
thousands of emails to find it.



On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:42 AM Rahul Huilgol <rahulhuil...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I pulled up some more stats so we can make an informed decision.
>
> Here are some popular Apache projects and the number of emails to their
> dev@
> list in the last 30 days
> Apache Flink: 540 mails
> ‚ÄčApache Spark: 249 mails
> Apache Hive: 481 mails
> Apache HBase: 300 mails
>
> Current dev list for MXNet: 348 mails
> Current commits list for MXNet: 5329 mails
> Making the proposed dev list for MXNet to be ~5677 mails.
>
> Sheng, even going by your comments that 1 of of those 4 mails are relevant
> for dev@, that's still a really high number of emails. (130 email lists
> doesn't say anything if we ignore the actual number of emails in those
> lists, especially when the 131st sends these many mails :) ). People are
> already talking about setting up filters here. Doesn't that defeat the
> purpose by making people filter out the discussion on Github? People can
> subscribe to commits@ if they find it more convenient to follow Github
> activity over email rather than Github.com.
>
> We should strive to maintain dev@ as a place for high quality discussion.
> It's upto the contributors to bring up something to dev@ if they believe
> it
> deserves a focused discussion in the community. That discussion may be
> started by the person who proposes code changes, or a reviewer who believes
> that a particular code change warrants further discussion.
>
> Regards,
> Rahul
>

Reply via email to