Darren Reed wrote: > I'm not 100% convinced that this is true. > > Around 18% of the 421 cases in 2007 had a discuss@/core@/team@ in > the Interest field,bso either a lot of cases don't have project teams or > the > feeling of the need to work in this way is not very wide spread. That's up > from 14% of the 340 in 2006 (~14 % in 2005, ~12% in 2004.
The Interest field is really only useful for fast-tracks, for which the review occurs over email, but it's true, the Interest field isn't always used. It's also the case that most cases aren't large projects, but small RFEs done by individuals. >> What's the problem with this (other than that OpenSolaris mailing >> lists are completely broken, but that's another topic entirely)? > > The most direct problem is being told your email is being held because > of indirect addressing - but this might be the "brokeness" you're > referring to ;) That's exactly the problem I'm referring to. > This is somehow tied up with your email going somewhere that you never > realised it would (when I got the alert from clearview-discuss, I was like > WTF did I get that, so I went hunting...) I've been equally annoyed, and have complained more than once. It's even more embarrassing when you want to start a discussion between an OpenSolaris project and a non-OpenSolaris project, and having to tell all of the non-OpenSolaris folks ahead of time that all of the mail messages will be rejected unless they're strong-armed to join the OpenSolaris lists. > Another problem is if there is subject matter that needs to be discussed > on psarc@, and not psarc-ext@, that is relevant to the case, it isn't clear > to me how that would be both kept private and filed in the correct case > mail log if there is an @opensolaris.org entry in the Interest field. This is a separate problem (and I'm not sure it's a problem at all), since there's no split mail log to begin with. > Project email aliases today, on opensolaris, have a much larger > audience and it isn't always reasonable to expect them all to be > ARC savvy. The outcome of this is that people can suddenly be > exposed to and part of a discussion without understanding the > rules (c.f the ksh93 case mail explosion.) That isn't necessarily > desirable. That's probably true, and perhaps that's one good reason to create a project team list that's private to the project developers (a <proj>-dev list), and another list that's for more general project discussions (a <proj>-discuss list). The developer list should be the one used for ARC discussions with the project team. -Seb
