On 21 January 2013 12:43, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm happy enough with the idea of collapsing proton@ given that Protons > scope is in some ways wider than when it started out (where the very > specific protocol library made a good case for a separate list), but I > don't think that list being separate is the main source of most of the > confusion with proton. People have asked roughly the same basic questions > about proton on users@ and proton@ at roughly the same time, which did > indeed mean certain discussion with answers might have only gone to one of > the lists at a time, but the key point for me was that they had to ask > those basic questions on either list in the first place. > > +1 > We are talking about improving communication, and for me the main problem > is often that information isn't being written down or sent to any of the > lists until someone asks a question requiring it. That question typically > gets met with a [large] email explaining the answer, but much of the time > it should be possible for the response to just be a link to somewhere the > answer is already written down in general, e.g the website, with perhaps > some context-specific additions. Some website update stats would probably > entertaining right about now for example. > > Completely agreed (and hands up to not personally having updated the website in ages). > I think users@ and dev@ should be left as is, and that we potentially just > adjust how we use them slightly. These lists have existed for several > years, and its the structure almost every Apache project works away just > fine with; I don't think we are all that special in this regard. I also > don't think we should subscribe everyone to a bunch of traffic they didn't > sign up for. That said, this doesn't mean developers actually need to post > discussion mails to dev@, the users@ list is always there and I know > Gordon > at least often posts only to that if it is a user related discussion, and I > think that approach works well enough if others were to use it. The dev@ > list can continue at least to hold things like the JIRA traffic (I could > see ReviewBoard postings going to either list), even if general discussion > moves to the users@ list. > > Personally I'd have JIRAs and ReviewBoards on dev and make sure everything else was on users. However I agree with your main point that it's not the multitude of mailing lists that is necessarily the issue... it's the fact that information isn't available *anywhere* :-) > Summarising, I agree we need to be better at communicating, I think a bit > of mailing list adjustment would be a good thing where proton@ could go > and > dev@ should stay in some guise, but that there are other problems with our > communication that reducing the number of mailing lists potentially does > little to solve. > > Agreed, Rob > Robbie > > > On 18 January 2013 17:21, Gordon Sim <g...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > 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-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.**org< > users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org> > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org > > > > >
