On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Emilian Bold wrote:
> I think switching mailing lists is going to take a toll on the community. > So, we are switching / migrating the @netbeans.org mailing lists to @ > netbeans.incubator.apache.org. > > First, I assume we will also automatically migrate users? Because if we > only ask a lot of people will not notice this and basically be silently > dropped (for example, people might lurk on [email protected] or just > [email protected]). > > Then, once out of incubation, we will migrate again from @ > netbeans.incubator.apache.org to @netbeans.apache.org? > > And perhaps in a few years go back to the proper @netbeans.org mailing > lists? > > Now that I think about it, is there a particular reason we cannot have the > Apache infra serve the existing @netbeans.org mailing lists? > > A lot of people have these email addresses in their contacts already, there > is tons of sites pointing to them, etc. > > > 1a. Ask the above to use tags and very clear subject lines in their mails > to the unified mailing list. > > I very much doubt people will learn this. A lot of users@ have short > interactions, they will not learn the tagging rule, just pick a mailing > list and go with it. > > Also, could we try a staged approach for this migration? We sort the lists > by number or users / activity and start migrating the smallest ones first > and leave the largest last? I would love to have answers to the above questions from Emilian re the mailing list status. Can the mentors help with the answers here? Thanks, Gj On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Geertjan Wielenga < [email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Emilian Bold wrote: > > >> I think switching mailing lists is going to take a toll on the community. > > > Great questions you're asking -- I hope someone from Apache can respond to > each of your points, I'm interested in those responses too, all points seem > valid to ask at this point. > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > > Don't you think it would be better to have these explanations at a >> stable URL first? > > > Agreed. Let's work through the various questions first, aside from > Emilian's, I'm sure there'll be more, though his are a good start. > > Gj > > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Geertjan Wielenga >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > ...I will do 1 and 2 after about 24 hours from now, to give everyone a >> chance >> > to disagree/agree with the above and to discuss further as needed.... >> >> Don't you think it would be better to have these explanations at a >> stable URL first? >> >> I suppose we can get a (Confluence as per Daniel) wiki quickly and you >> could then just send the URL of that explanations page - which we can >> update later if needed, as we're bound to discover a few things along >> the way ;-) >> >> -Bertrand >> > >
