Hi Rafi,

You raise some good points, but I don't understand how keeping a separate 
proton list makes it easier to provide a coherent view of the qpid project, 
especially to newcomers.

As you point out:

> 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.


Agreed, and to that point, I think it would be a very bad precedent to 
structure the mailing lists into component silos.  Wouldn't creating a separate 
mailing list for, say "qpid-cpp-bro...@qpid.apache.org", send exactly the wrong 
message?  Yet "proton@qpid.apache.org" somehow doesn't?

If we really want people to think of QPID as being more than just a cpp 
broker/java broker/etc, then we should start by revising the very first 
paragraph of our homepage:

"Introduction

Apache Qpid™ is a cross-platform Enterprise Messaging system which implements 
the Advanced Message Queuing Protocol (AMQP), providing message brokers written 
in C++ and Java, along with clients for C++, Java JMS, .Net, Python, and Ruby."


-K

----- Original Message -----
> 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