You should explicitly tell potential contributors what you expect of them. Here is what you document:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/master/docs/community/contribute.md There is nothing there that tells contributors to discuss proposals on dev first. It sounds like that needs to be fixed. On 7/18/18, 1:21 PM, "Chris Olivier" <[email protected]> wrote: to know about github discussions, you’d need to scan all issues and prs constantly which isn’t a reasonable expectation. dev is where discussions are supposed to happen in a apache, PERIOD. Apache isn’t dmlc. I wish some people would stop trying to turn Apache conventions into dmlc conventions. seems this is a constant push from day one. On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:39 AM Sheng Zha <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks, I hear the concerns and it's not my intention to push people off > the list. On the other hand, I think github discussions are no more > "artificial" than discussions on dev list, and the good and important > discussions warrant the same amount of attention. With this vote, I intend > to make contributors' life easier by decoupling the recognized forum from > the technology they use, and that github contributors can easily > communicate with the community on the list. > > -sz > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Barber, Christopher < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Can't you simply tell contributors to discuss changes on dev before > > submitting a PR? Since the contribution guidelines don't tell developers > to > > post to dev, why would you expect them to do that? > > > > Is there an easy way to just subscribe to PR notifications or will > someone > > have to write a filter to avoid spamming dev with all GitHub > notifications? > > I think that if dev gets too much traffic, then people with casual > interest > > may find it easier to unsubscribe than to set up filters. Once someone > > unsubscribes, they probably won't be coming back soon, so you should be > > very careful with this. > > > > I don't see why artificially increasing the traffic on dev will do > > anything to grow the community in any case. > > > > - C > > > > On 7/18/18, 11:17 AM, "Indhu" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Some mentors/contributors/committees feel that the amount of > > discussions in > > dev list is too less given the amount of commits that happen and more > > discussions need to happen in the dev list to grow the community. > > > > In response some committees feel discussions actually happen in > GitHub > > PRs. > > If the policy says "if it didn't happen in dev, it didn't happen", > > let's > > forward all GitHub discussions to dev so those discussions would > count. > > That's the motivation for this vote. > > > > I think when people say there needs to be more discussions in the dev > > list, > > I assume they mean the kind of discussions that happen *before* a PR > is > > created or even before someone starts working on anything. I don't > > think > > people are asking an email for every activity on GitHub. The correct > > way to > > address the problem would be for committees/contributors to stop > > communicating in private channels (like Amazon or DMLC communication > > channels) and do those discussions in the dev list instead. > > > > Indu > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:51 AM Barber, Christopher < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Can't people already subscribe to github notifications? I think it > > is safe > > > to assume that developers are already smart enough to figure out > how > > to do > > > that if they want. What problem are you really trying to solve > here? > > > > > > On 7/18/18, 4:49 AM, "Chris Olivier" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > -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 < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > 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 > > > > Apache 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
