Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New lists and their usage
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 22:20 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: > On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 13:41 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 21:26 +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote: > > > Ryan Hill wrote: > > > > zombieswift/new devs-project > > > > council/trustee nominations -project > > > > > > Then it's worth cross-posting -core or -dev-announce or similar. I > > > thought that goal of -project was to keep devs away from poisonous > > > content without impairing their Gentoo-awareness. > > > > This is what I am afraid of, as it now looks like all we've accomplished > > is making it more difficult for someone to keep their eyes on > > everything. > > On the other hand it's easier to keep our eyes off stuff which a large > chunk of devs deem twaddle. You can subscribe to many lists easily - not > so easily to filter one massive list. See, but I also would like to actually see some of this stuff, without having to worry about which list my reply is supposed to go to (come on, that's just getting ludicrous) and without reading the same emails repeatedly (auto-forwarding). As I see it now, to be even the least bit informed to do things like... oh... voting for the Council, I'd have to follow multiple lists. > > [ ... ] > > Yeah, you should take that to -project or some other suitable list :P Once some consensus is made and it actually becomes policy, sure. Until then, I'm going to continue to use this list for the same things it's been used for up until now. Once we've agreed upon how the lists should be used, then I see no issue with using them that way, meaning *this* conversation does belong here, as there's been no consensus amongst our developer pool, nor a completed Council decision to change the policy. Like I said, the two proposals I had seen were: - gentoo-dev-announce - gentoo-project I hadn't seen anyone asking for both, so we've now got to figure out whether to drop one list or repurpose one of them. Personally, I'm for repurposing gentoo-dev-announce to be a global "development" announce list with no reply-to munging/filtering and developer-only posting. I think doing this would be complimentary to gentoo-project and would be useful to me, allowing me to know about conversations on other lists and allowing *me* to *choose* when I want to participate, which is a vast improvement from what we have had until now. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New lists and their usage
Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 21:26 +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote: Ryan Hill wrote: zombieswift/new devs-project council/trustee nominations -project Then it's worth cross-posting -core or -dev-announce or similar. I thought that goal of -project was to keep devs away from poisonous content without impairing their Gentoo-awareness. This is what I am afraid of, as it now looks like all we've accomplished is making it more difficult for someone to keep their eyes on everything. That's what you get for allowing trolls on the list.Sorry for being brutally honest but it has been a long time coming... George -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New lists and their usage
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 13:41 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 21:26 +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote: > > Ryan Hill wrote: > > > zombieswift/new devs -project > > > council/trustee nominations -project > > > > Then it's worth cross-posting -core or -dev-announce or similar. I > > thought that goal of -project was to keep devs away from poisonous > > content without impairing their Gentoo-awareness. > > This is what I am afraid of, as it now looks like all we've accomplished > is making it more difficult for someone to keep their eyes on > everything. On the other hand it's easier to keep our eyes off stuff which a large chunk of devs deem twaddle. You can subscribe to many lists easily - not so easily to filter one massive list. > [ ... ] Yeah, you should take that to -project or some other suitable list :P Thanks Roy -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New lists and their usage
On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 20:33 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:26:07 +0200 > Jan Kundrát <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ryan Hill wrote: > > > zombieswift/new devs -project > > > council/trustee nominations -project > > > > Then it's worth cross-posting -core or -dev-announce or similar. I > > thought that goal of -project was to keep devs away from poisonous > > content without impairing their Gentoo-awareness. > > Ah, you mean you thought -project was a dumping ground where people > could be sent when you wanted to ignore someone? Shouldn't you take this to -project? :P -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New lists and their usage
On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 21:26 +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote: > Ryan Hill wrote: > > zombieswift/new devs-project > > council/trustee nominations -project > > Then it's worth cross-posting -core or -dev-announce or similar. I > thought that goal of -project was to keep devs away from poisonous > content without impairing their Gentoo-awareness. This is what I am afraid of, as it now looks like all we've accomplished is making it more difficult for someone to keep their eyes on everything. Also, what is the point of dev-announce, then? Realize that dev-announce and project were two separate "solutions" for the same "problem" so now we have two different ways of getting the same point across. If dev-announce continues down the path it is currently going of being only some precursor to dev, I don't see the point, at all. If it is opened up more as I'd outlined previously, making it useful for *all* lists, then I definitely see the reasoning. I'm still not sure I see the point on project, though, since nearly anything being discussed on project could go to another list. I mean, anything policy-related could go to the appropriate list, such as gentoo-council, gentoo-nfp, or gentoo-devrel, so what exactly *is* left, aside from flames, that is non-technical in nature, doesn't fall under the Council/Trustees/DevRel, but still is a global issue? -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New lists and their usage
Duncan wrote: > The idea is this. For non-tech posts, X-post the /first/ post, the > announcement of the idea (for new devs, nominations, etc, to both dev and > dev-announce), so those only paying attention to dev know about it. Set > the followup to project (not dev). Those who wish to discuss it, the > discussion goes to project. It seems to me that since -dev-announce is for topics both technical *and* non-technical, -dev-announce should *not* be automatically (or manually) cross-posted to -dev as a general rule. Also, I would consider it odd to set auto-reply munging for -dev-announce to -dev. >From the description of the new -dev-announce list, it does not seem to be an "announcement version" of -dev, but rather a list with a different purpose, so tying it to -dev, either via automatic reply munging or cross-posting does not make sense to me. -Joe -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: New lists and their usage
Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 22 Jul 2007 22:32:26 -0400: > Jan Kundrát wrote: >> Ryan Hill wrote: >>> zombieswift/new devs-project >>> council/trustee nominations -project >> >> Then it's worth cross-posting -core or -dev-announce or similar. I >> thought that goal of -project was to keep devs away from poisonous >> content without impairing their Gentoo-awareness. >> > I thought the goal was more to separate technical and non-technical > content - as most of the heavy-reply emails on -dev were non-technical > in nature. The politics/etc could go on -project. [snip] > If anything of any importance at all gets discussed on -dev, then all > the non-technical stuff will end up on -dev as well and nothing will be > accomplished by having the new list. Developers who are interested in > participating in politics (devrel, CoC debates, user-relation > discussions, etc) should subscribe to -project. The idea is this. For non-tech posts, X-post the /first/ post, the announcement of the idea (for new devs, nominations, etc, to both dev and dev-announce), so those only paying attention to dev know about it. Set the followup to project (not dev). Those who wish to discuss it, the discussion goes to project. If/when a decision is made, the announcement of the decision is made to dev-announce and dev, again xposted and fup2 set to project. For most non-technical stuff then, dev will normally get two posts, the initial idea announcement, and the decision announcement if one is made. Dev-announce will get one, the final decision. Foundation and council nominations are a bit strange in this regard, since generally, the thread starter is an announcement, but arguably so are the nominations and accept/reject notices. This one's tough, but I'd call it an exception. The best idea I can come up with here is initial nominations open announcement to dev-announce, xposted to dev, with fup2 set to dev (not project, the single non-tech exception). That will keep dev-announce noise really low, while allowing the nominations and accept/ reject on dev, one step above where they'd normally be because they are announcements, but not on announce, to keep the noise there lower. In keeping with this exception, the original nominations open announcement should say those and acceptance/rejection notices are welcome on dev, but that any discussion thereof should be on project only. Then an elections official appointed to the job should produce a summary a few days before nominations close with nominations to date, and again as nominations close and elections begin. This summary should go to dev- announce, xposted and fup2 set to dev for more nominations for the pre- close announcement, and to project for the nominations close, elections begin, announcement. So for nominations, there'd be three posts to dev announce instead of two, the opening announcement, the pre-close summary, and the final summary, marking the opening of elections. > One thing I want to caution is a potentially-dangerous mindset that a > flame is any post that one personally disagrees with - or which a > majority of developers disagree with. Flames are more about attitude > and intent - not so much about viewpoint. [snip] ++ -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: New lists and their usage
Jan Kundrát wrote: > Then it's worth cross-posting -core or -dev-announce or similar. I > thought that goal of -project was to keep devs away from poisonous > content without impairing their Gentoo-awareness. I'd like to think that the goal of -project is to let devs who are only interested in technical discussion stay away from the rest of the crap they don't care about. I agree about the cross-posting; in a perfect world, one should be able to maintain their Gentoo-awareness with -dev-announce and -core alone. Poisonous content shouldn't be tolerated on any list (also in a perfect world). -- dirtyepicyou'd be tossed up or wash up, the narrator relates gentoo org in a spartan antarctican walk for many days 9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New lists and their usage
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jan Kundrát wrote: > Ryan Hill wrote: >> zombieswift/new devs -project >> council/trustee nominations -project > > Then it's worth cross-posting -core or -dev-announce or similar. I > thought that goal of -project was to keep devs away from poisonous > content without impairing their Gentoo-awareness. > I thought the goal was more to separate technical and non-technical content - as most of the heavy-reply emails on -dev were non-technical in nature. The politics/etc could go on -project. As somebody else pointed out in a reply to one of my emails (which I totally agree with) - flames (aka poisonous content) aren't welcome anywhere. If anything of any importance at all gets discussed on -dev, then all the non-technical stuff will end up on -dev as well and nothing will be accomplished by having the new list. Developers who are interested in participating in politics (devrel, CoC debates, user-relation discussions, etc) should subscribe to -project. One thing I want to caution is a potentially-dangerous mindset that a flame is any post that one personally disagrees with - or which a majority of developers disagree with. Flames are more about attitude and intent - not so much about viewpoint. As an example I tended to disagree with the point you were raising, but I'd hope we could agree that I'm attempting to be constructive in my reply and that I'm trying to focus on what is good for Gentoo and not my personal agenda. If I had just replied with a one-liner of some sort it would be less constructive. Even so, this is inherently a political discussion and those devs on this list who would prefer to just work on their herds and not worry about moderation/ CoC/ religious positions on package managers/ etc. would probably prefer that it took place on -project - not because the debate isn't important, but simply because it isn't what they're interested in reading about. I've participated in moderated lists which weren't perceived as one-sided or as creating a division between valued and unvalued posters. Often a majority of posts are moderated, and the only thing the moderator does is determine whether the post adds value to the conversation. One-liners get rejected regardless of who sends them - and genuine arguments get accepted regardless of where they line up against the party view. Such lists benefit from a diversity of opinions and don't get as bogged-down in groupthink. They also tend to be more inviting to outsiders. Flames really shouldn't be welcome on any list. I know there are posters on this list that drive most of the devs crazy - and it is easy for me to just say not to fight fire with fire. I know that when devs do reply with one-liners nobody thinks less of them for it as a result (I am not certain I'd act any differently if I were in their shoes). However, that isn't good for the project - it tends to create a strong core team that circles the wagons against outside dissent - which is good when the dissent is just an annoying party of raiders, but it can lead to less flexibility and an unwillingness to tolerate dissent of any kind. I'm sure the XFree86 team is still a tight-knit group that is happy with the licensing decision they made some time ago, even though as a result they're almost entirely irrelevant to the FOSS world now. I think the -dev / -project division is good, and I think it will make a lot of devs happy - if for no other reason than they don't need to read discussions like this one... :) However, if anybody thinks that it will succeed in getting rid of certain unpopular voices on this list I think they will be disappointed - they will go where the discussion is. At best the division will let people choose what discussion they participate in - not who participates in those discussions. Maybe we can just be optimistic that at some point we'll learn how to disagree maturely... -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGpBM3G4/rWKZmVWkRAglhAJ9AYoXcvhIYd5hMYQBElNm4CMfgWACgqEoD n8pSc8R9O1cpAezKxAEnaaY= =XqMN -END PGP SIGNATURE- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New lists and their usage
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:26:07 +0200 Jan Kundrát <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ryan Hill wrote: > > zombieswift/new devs-project > > council/trustee nominations -project > > Then it's worth cross-posting -core or -dev-announce or similar. I > thought that goal of -project was to keep devs away from poisonous > content without impairing their Gentoo-awareness. Ah, you mean you thought -project was a dumping ground where people could be sent when you wanted to ignore someone? -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New lists and their usage
Ryan Hill wrote: > zombieswift/new devs -project > council/trustee nominations -project Then it's worth cross-posting -core or -dev-announce or similar. I thought that goal of -project was to keep devs away from poisonous content without impairing their Gentoo-awareness. > more photos on planet -project Perhaps a note on -core, again. Cheers, -jkt -- cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: New lists and their usage
Chris Gianelloni wrote: > gentoo-dev: This list is for technical discussion, primarily between > developers, about development and development-related issues that > directly affect the tree or current projects. For now, no changes are > made to this list. technical discussion > gentoo-projects: This list is for... what exactly? I've not really > figured that one out just yet. I know it is supposed to be pretty much > anything that doesn't fit into gentoo-dev or another project-specific > list. Am I correct here? Is this what everyone thinks this list is > supposed to be used for? non-technical discussion ;) at least that's how i see it. for example, based on the last few weeks of threads here on -dev: virtual/x11 cleanups-dev baselayout-2 stabilization -dev new lists and their usage -project zombieswift/new devs-project council/trustee nominations -project paludis/emacs overlay -dev math-proof herd -dev qmail eclass-dev more photos on planet -project random flaming /dev/null i don't know about last rites - i'd say -dev since they're about ebuilds being removed. -- dirtyepicyou'd be tossed up or wash up, the narrator relates gentoo org in a spartan antarctican walk for many days 9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New lists and their usage
On 7/21/07, Nathan Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From what I can tell by reading the logs of the council meeting [1], the purpose of -project is to keep "all the flamewars and bitching" off the -dev list. On 7/21/07, Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think this is a good idea. If the only thing that goes on -project is flame wars then the list will die and all the flamewars will just come back to -dev... What makes you guys think that flamewars or bitching will be tolerated on any of our lists ? Denis. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New lists and their usage
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Duncan wrote: > Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted >> gentoo-projects: This list is for... what exactly? I've not really >> figured that one out just yet. I know it is supposed to be pretty much >> anything that doesn't fit into gentoo-dev or another project-specific >> list. Am I correct here? Is this what everyone thinks this list is >> supposed to be used for? > > My take is that if it's gentoo devel but not tech in nature, it goes > there by default. The short term rule of thumb could then be post it > there if in doubt whether it goes here or there, and if it's posted here > and any dev complains, it goes there, regardless. (Once the current > subscription snafus get worked out, I'd hope by Monday or Tuesday at the > latest.) > I think this is a good idea. If the only thing that goes on -project is flame wars then the list will die and all the flamewars will just come back to -dev... I'd think that anything non-technical related to the gentoo distro that is at a high level should probably go on -project. That might be a place to announce council agendas, council nominations, this email thread, etc. Some seem to be of the mind that -project should be mainly for stuff that no developer would want to look at anyway. The problem with that is the whole reason that stuff gets posted to -dev is that people want to interact with the -devs - so the traffic will go wherever the devs are. If you want to keep -dev on technical topics then the interesting non-technical topics will have to go to -project so that the list is taken seriously. Otherwise all the noise will just be back on -dev -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGoe59G4/rWKZmVWkRAndEAJ9NjInDoVCY/UW3e2P9KXccwf2ejwCePXd/ AbYUE2gK7B9fc0zpWZkr0SY= =3B7N -END PGP SIGNATURE- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: New lists and their usage
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:20:24 -0700: > gentoo-dev: This list is for technical discussion, primarily between > developers, about development and development-related issues that > directly affect the tree or current projects. For now, no changes are > made to this list. ++ > gentoo-dev-announce: This is the announcement list for > development-related stuff. Now, there's two ideas for how to run the > list, that I can think of, but I'm sure there's others. > > - Make the list set reply-to to gentoo-dev and automatically copy any > messages from this list to gentoo-dev... > > - Make the list *not* set *any* reply-to, nor strip it, and allow people > to use the list to announce development-related stuff from *any* list... > For example, if I'm about to start a discussion on possible changes to > the releases, I could send a message to gentoo-dev-announce, which will > start the thread, with gentoo-releng set as the reply-to. I would be > responsible for making sure the email was also sent to gentoo-releng > myself. The latter would be nice if it would work. It might if it's restricted to dev posts, but the former may be necessary. > gentoo-projects: This list is for... what exactly? I've not really > figured that one out just yet. I know it is supposed to be pretty much > anything that doesn't fit into gentoo-dev or another project-specific > list. Am I correct here? Is this what everyone thinks this list is > supposed to be used for? My take is that if it's gentoo devel but not tech in nature, it goes there by default. The short term rule of thumb could then be post it there if in doubt whether it goes here or there, and if it's posted here and any dev complains, it goes there, regardless. (Once the current subscription snafus get worked out, I'd hope by Monday or Tuesday at the latest.) By way of example, your original thread starter could have been xposted here and there, with replies sent there, until a decision had been made. Once a decision was reached, it would be posted to announce and here and there, all three, but the pre-decision discussion would have been there save the initial xposted thread starter, keeping this list spam-free for those that aren't interested. Two posts here, the original question and decision announcement, likely > 10 posts, maybe 100 or more if it's controversial there, kept off this list. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: New lists and their usage
"Nathan Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:53:02 -0700: > On 7/20/07, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> gentoo-projects: This list is for... what exactly? I've not really >> figured that one out just yet. I know it is supposed to be pretty much >> anything that doesn't fit into gentoo-dev or another project-specific >> list. Am I correct here? Is this what everyone thinks this list is >> supposed to be used for? > > From what I can tell by reading the logs of the council meeting [1], the > purpose of -project is to keep "all the flamewars and bitching" off the > -dev list. However, it seems that moderating -dev should accomplish > that purpose, so I question the need for its existence. If it is not > required reading for developers, how is it substantively different from > -user? > > [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20070614.txt Hopefully, dev won't end up needing moderated after all, after project is up and running well, and the outgoing council decides to take a pass on it at their last (August) meeting, both to let that happen, and to let the new council make that decision. project will ideally reduce dev traffic by half, possibly more, if people can self-moderate, thus hopefully eliminating the need for moderation. Given the controversial aspect, if self-moderation can work, it'd be better to keep it to that. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
