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 "email@example.com" 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 > > > > > > > > >