I'm late to the party on this one, but +1 on the working groups idea. -1 on email lists per component. I don't really think there are enough "single-component" email threads that would warrant each component having their own mailing list. Those discussions can be had in the component's respective slack channel, if they really need to be separate, then taken to the mailing list with the results.
- Rawlin On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 9:29 AM David Neuman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sounds great, I will reach out to all three of you and we can get the ball > rolling. > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 6:58 AM Hoppal, Michael <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I would love to start one for Traffic Ops. > > > > Michael > > > > On 11/13/19, 3:26 PM, "Gray, Jonathan" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I'd volunteer for one on install/upgrade/lab.infra/automation/ci/cd. > > > > Jonathan G > > > > > > On 11/13/19, 3:07 PM, "Jeremy Mitchell" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I'll bite. I'd like to start one for TP. > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 2:50 PM David Neuman < > > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > @Robert Butts <[email protected]>, there is a process to > > create > > > more > > > mailing lists, Phil helped me do it to create summits@ > > > > > > If someone is interested in starting our first working group, I > > will be > > > happy to help. > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 2:23 PM Robert O Butts <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 on Working Groups, the IETF also works by consensus, and > > WGs work very > > > > well there. > > > > > > > > They're particularly good for letting people subscribe to > > things they > > > care > > > > about, while ignoring things they don't. It'd be ideal if > > Apache will let > > > > us make arbitrary mailing lists. Not sure if that's possible? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 2:18 PM Hoppal, Michael < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Agreed with Jeremy I would be +1 on both ideas. > > > > > > > > > > On 11/13/19, 2:07 PM, "ocket 8888" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > well, I actually like Dave's suggestion better than my > > own > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:40 PM Jeremy Mitchell < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I like both of those ideas. Either a working group and > > someone > > > > > volunteers > > > > > > to setup/lead the working group (ideally a committer > > or pmc > > > member) > > > > > or an > > > > > > RM at the component level to help manage issues, > > milestones, > > > > > roadmaps, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeremy > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:27 PM Dave Neuman < > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with Rob and Jonathan on this one. I don't > > see a > > > reason > > > > > that > > > > > > > committers cannot already gravitate toward a > > component, and I > > > > want > > > > > to > > > > > > avoid > > > > > > > adding any formal designation to community members > > outside of > > > the > > > > > defined > > > > > > > Apache ones (contributor, commiter, and pmc). > > > > > > > I think I would rather see us head in the direction > > of working > > > > > groups. > > > > > > We > > > > > > > can define working groups for each component > > (although I really > > > > > don't > > > > > > think > > > > > > > each component needs one) that is open to anyone. > > The working > > > > > group can > > > > > > > meet on a consistent interval and can use that time > > to complete > > > > the > > > > > > > managerial tasks outlined above as well as discuss > > open PRs, > > > have > > > > > design > > > > > > > conversations, etc. Of course, any decision made in > > the > > > working > > > > > group > > > > > > > meeting would then need to be brought back to the > > list. > > > Ideally > > > > > we would > > > > > > > have a PMC member that takes the initiative to setup > > the > > > working > > > > > group, > > > > > > but > > > > > > > I don't see that as a hard requirement. I am happy > > to help > > > > anyone > > > > > who is > > > > > > > interested get a working group setup. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 11:24 AM < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2019-11-13 at 10:57 -0700, Jeremy Mitchell > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Maybe component lead is not the right term? > > > > > > > > >> ... hold the position for a defined amount of > > time ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since most of the responsibilities seem tied to > > releases, > > > maybe > > > > > we just > > > > > > > > need sub-release-managers for the components? The > > main RM can > > > > > also fill > > > > > > > > one of those positions as well as "main RM". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
