I think you raise a good point about the goals of the project being
confused, but don't think the cause here is mailing lists. As we've seen,
recent threads have asked about "qpid vs proton", and to a lot of us this
is an odd thing to ask about because we think of proton as part of qpid.
However we who are close to the project also think of qpid as something
that is larger than just a broker. The project goals/identity issue in my
mind has very little to do with the lists and more to do with the fact that
many people think of qpid == broker, qpid cpp == cpp broker, and qpid java
== java broker. While this understanding may have been more or less true at
one point, it is now and going forward a misconception, yet we have done
nothing to educate our users about this. I think this is really at the core
of the identity issues, and if anything a separate proton list has helped
raise these issues to the surface, because at least it is clear that proton
is something that is self contained and distinct from the cpp broker and
the java broker.

I would hate to lose that distinction and have it all turn into one big
jumbled muddle. I think rearranging the lists is not a substitute for
rearranging the project and actively communicating about its structure. I
may be in the minority with my -1, but I think there is actually a lot more
work that needs to be done surrounding project structure, identity,
documentation, communication, etc, and simply rearranging lists without
doing the rest of that work is IMHO jumping the gun.

--Rafael

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Ken Giusti <kgiu...@redhat.com> wrote:

> I'm in favor of combining them all into one.
>
> If not that, then at least collapse the "proton" list.   The level of
> traffic on that list isn't unreasonable, and, frankly, keeping it separate
> probably leads to some of the confusion we're seeing over the goals of this
> project.
>
>
> -K
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing
> > out on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
> >
> > Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list
> > without
> > reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a
> > large
> > part of the community in the dark. Now that we have a distinct list
> > for
> > proton there is the possibility of yet more fragmentation.
> >
> > I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list for
> > discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that cross-cut
> > different components or that would benefit from wider participation.
> > Not
> > all topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is always
> > going to be the case.
> >
> > It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume
> > that
> > this would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of subject
> > could help people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I think
> > do
> > warrant their own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be avoided
> > if
> > so desired).
> >
> > Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged
> > with
> > unwanted emails?
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to