Re: [Discuss][VOTE] Combine the project user and dev mailing lists into user@ and dev@

[Matt Sicker]

We should start a new vote for issues@. We've already voted to merge dev@
and keep the user lists as is.

On 28 March 2017 at 14:18, Paul Benedict  wrote:

> Yes, I think combining the "user@" and "dev@" variants into two are
> appropriate. +1 (non-binding) for me.
>
> Furthermore --- and this has always been a scratch of mine to itch (and I
> raise this about once a year!) -- I would like a dedicated "issues@"
> mailing list like other Apache projects. The traditional answer back to me
> is "I setup filters for this so you can too" but I would just prefer the
> separation. The separation also makes it easier to browse the "dev@"
> archives. So for 2017, what do you guys say? Can we finally get that going
> this time around?
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Ralph Goers 
> wrote:
>
>> Matt,
>>
>> Any update on this?
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Ralph Goers 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Matt!
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:15 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> No other opinions apparently. I suppose we'll go with the single list
>> with bounce messages. I'll follow up with infra later today.
>>
>> On 18 March 2017 at 13:12, Ralph Goers 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> OK. I guess I am fine with the bounce messages. Any other opinions?
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Mar 18, 2017, at 8:42 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>>
>>> I got this response from Gavin:
>>>
>>> Hi [~jvz] Sorry but I think I'm going to push back on that last request.
>>>
>>> Merging the lists - no problem
>>> Merging all the subscribers - no problem
>>> Creating bounce messages directing people to use the merged target list
>>> - no problem
>>>
>>> People will know in advance this merger is going to take place, and if
>>> they forget I think it'll take only one or two bounce messages to get the
>>> hint.
>>>
>>> If you are :-
>>>
>>> a) Happy with that - pick a date this can be done , let all lists users
>>> know this is happening and the date then let me know.
>>> b) Not Happy with that - ping this ticket again and we'll escalate
>>> further.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> On 16 March 2017 at 22:23, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>>
 Oh, I didn't realise I had a response on how to handle that. Let me
 follow up with infra.

 On 16 March 2017 at 21:46, Ralph Goers 
 wrote:

> Is there any follow-up to this?
>
> Ralph
>
> On Mar 12, 2017, at 9:30 PM, Ralph Goers 
> wrote:
>
> 1. That seems fine to me.
> 2. Is it possible to do both? I like the idea of annoying the sender
> but still allowing the email to be sent. It would cool if it could even 
> add
> [list] to the start of the subject line.
> 3. This is the main thing that needs to happen.
>
> Ralph
>
>
>
> On Mar 12, 2017, at 7:49 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> Some things:
>
> 1. Archives won't be merged.
> 2. Infra suggests it might be a better idea to have the old email
> addresses respond with a canned reply saying that the lists have moved 
> over
> to dev@, though they can set it up all as aliases if we prefer.
> 3. Current subscribers from all dev lists would be automatically
> subscribed to the combined list.
>
> So, use aliases or have the old addresses bounce back and inform
> senders to use the new list?
>
> On 12 March 2017 at 18:31, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
>> Created a request, not sure if it's public: https://issues.apache.
>> org/jira/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/INFRA-13651
>>
>> On 12 March 2017 at 17:11, Ralph Goers 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes,
>>>
>>> If you could send the request to infra I would appreciate it.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Mar 12, 2017, at 1:13 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>>
>>> The vote has been open for 5 days now. Based on the tallies and
>>> discussions, it sounds like we'd like to merge the dev lists but keep 
>>> the
>>> user lists as is. Shall we move forward with combining them now?
>>>
>>> On 10 March 2017 at 12:27, Dominik Psenner 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Total agreement.

 On 10 Mar 2017 6:26 p.m., "Ralph Goers" 
 wrote:

> This is exactly why we need one dev list. These last two responses
> dropped the other lists.  This is a horrible way to have discussions 
> that
> affect all the sub projects.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> On Mar 10, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> I'd love to see more unified configurations in all the
> subprojects. Gary mentioned that as an idea for log4cxx as that would 
> make
> it useful for his use case where they're using both Java and C++ in 
> various
> projects.
>
> While the programming languages in use here (Java, .NET, PHP, and
> C++) aren't really compatible with each other, having similar 
> arc

Re: [Discuss][VOTE] Combine the project user and dev mailing lists into user@ and dev@

[Paul Benedict]

Yes, I think combining the "user@" and "dev@" variants into two are
appropriate. +1 (non-binding) for me.

Furthermore --- and this has always been a scratch of mine to itch (and I
raise this about once a year!) -- I would like a dedicated "issues@"
mailing list like other Apache projects. The traditional answer back to me
is "I setup filters for this so you can too" but I would just prefer the
separation. The separation also makes it easier to browse the "dev@"
archives. So for 2017, what do you guys say? Can we finally get that going
this time around?

Cheers,
Paul

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Ralph Goers 
wrote:

> Matt,
>
> Any update on this?
>
> Ralph
>
> On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Ralph Goers 
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Matt!
>
> Ralph
>
> On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:15 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> No other opinions apparently. I suppose we'll go with the single list with
> bounce messages. I'll follow up with infra later today.
>
> On 18 March 2017 at 13:12, Ralph Goers  wrote:
>
>> OK. I guess I am fine with the bounce messages. Any other opinions?
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Mar 18, 2017, at 8:42 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> I got this response from Gavin:
>>
>> Hi [~jvz] Sorry but I think I'm going to push back on that last request.
>>
>> Merging the lists - no problem
>> Merging all the subscribers - no problem
>> Creating bounce messages directing people to use the merged target list -
>> no problem
>>
>> People will know in advance this merger is going to take place, and if
>> they forget I think it'll take only one or two bounce messages to get the
>> hint.
>>
>> If you are :-
>>
>> a) Happy with that - pick a date this can be done , let all lists users
>> know this is happening and the date then let me know.
>> b) Not Happy with that - ping this ticket again and we'll escalate
>> further.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> On 16 March 2017 at 22:23, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, I didn't realise I had a response on how to handle that. Let me
>>> follow up with infra.
>>>
>>> On 16 March 2017 at 21:46, Ralph Goers 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Is there any follow-up to this?

 Ralph

 On Mar 12, 2017, at 9:30 PM, Ralph Goers 
 wrote:

 1. That seems fine to me.
 2. Is it possible to do both? I like the idea of annoying the sender
 but still allowing the email to be sent. It would cool if it could even add
 [list] to the start of the subject line.
 3. This is the main thing that needs to happen.

 Ralph



 On Mar 12, 2017, at 7:49 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:

 Some things:

 1. Archives won't be merged.
 2. Infra suggests it might be a better idea to have the old email
 addresses respond with a canned reply saying that the lists have moved over
 to dev@, though they can set it up all as aliases if we prefer.
 3. Current subscribers from all dev lists would be automatically
 subscribed to the combined list.

 So, use aliases or have the old addresses bounce back and inform
 senders to use the new list?

 On 12 March 2017 at 18:31, Matt Sicker  wrote:

> Created a request, not sure if it's public: https://issues.apache.
> org/jira/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/INFRA-13651
>
> On 12 March 2017 at 17:11, Ralph Goers 
> wrote:
>
>> Yes,
>>
>> If you could send the request to infra I would appreciate it.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Mar 12, 2017, at 1:13 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> The vote has been open for 5 days now. Based on the tallies and
>> discussions, it sounds like we'd like to merge the dev lists but keep the
>> user lists as is. Shall we move forward with combining them now?
>>
>> On 10 March 2017 at 12:27, Dominik Psenner 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Total agreement.
>>>
>>> On 10 Mar 2017 6:26 p.m., "Ralph Goers" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 This is exactly why we need one dev list. These last two responses
 dropped the other lists.  This is a horrible way to have discussions 
 that
 affect all the sub projects.

 Ralph


 On Mar 10, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:

 I'd love to see more unified configurations in all the subprojects.
 Gary mentioned that as an idea for log4cxx as that would make it 
 useful for
 his use case where they're using both Java and C++ in various projects.

 While the programming languages in use here (Java, .NET, PHP, and
 C++) aren't really compatible with each other, having similar 
 architectures
 and plugin systems could help a bit in this regard. Having more 
 inclusive
 conversations about this would be great.

 On 10 March 2017 at 04:29, Mikael Ståldal >>> .com> wrote:

> I think that a vast majority of our users only uses one of the
> languages we support, and therefore onl

Re: [Discuss][VOTE] Combine the project user and dev mailing lists into user@ and dev@

[Matt Sicker]

I followed up with infra over the weekend but haven't gotten a response yet.

On 27 March 2017 at 20:21, Ralph Goers  wrote:

> Matt,
>
> Any update on this?
>
> Ralph
>
> On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Ralph Goers 
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Matt!
>
> Ralph
>
> On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:15 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> No other opinions apparently. I suppose we'll go with the single list with
> bounce messages. I'll follow up with infra later today.
>
> On 18 March 2017 at 13:12, Ralph Goers  wrote:
>
>> OK. I guess I am fine with the bounce messages. Any other opinions?
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Mar 18, 2017, at 8:42 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> I got this response from Gavin:
>>
>> Hi [~jvz] Sorry but I think I'm going to push back on that last request.
>>
>> Merging the lists - no problem
>> Merging all the subscribers - no problem
>> Creating bounce messages directing people to use the merged target list -
>> no problem
>>
>> People will know in advance this merger is going to take place, and if
>> they forget I think it'll take only one or two bounce messages to get the
>> hint.
>>
>> If you are :-
>>
>> a) Happy with that - pick a date this can be done , let all lists users
>> know this is happening and the date then let me know.
>> b) Not Happy with that - ping this ticket again and we'll escalate
>> further.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> On 16 March 2017 at 22:23, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, I didn't realise I had a response on how to handle that. Let me
>>> follow up with infra.
>>>
>>> On 16 March 2017 at 21:46, Ralph Goers 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Is there any follow-up to this?

 Ralph

 On Mar 12, 2017, at 9:30 PM, Ralph Goers 
 wrote:

 1. That seems fine to me.
 2. Is it possible to do both? I like the idea of annoying the sender
 but still allowing the email to be sent. It would cool if it could even add
 [list] to the start of the subject line.
 3. This is the main thing that needs to happen.

 Ralph



 On Mar 12, 2017, at 7:49 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:

 Some things:

 1. Archives won't be merged.
 2. Infra suggests it might be a better idea to have the old email
 addresses respond with a canned reply saying that the lists have moved over
 to dev@, though they can set it up all as aliases if we prefer.
 3. Current subscribers from all dev lists would be automatically
 subscribed to the combined list.

 So, use aliases or have the old addresses bounce back and inform
 senders to use the new list?

 On 12 March 2017 at 18:31, Matt Sicker  wrote:

> Created a request, not sure if it's public: https://issues.apache.
> org/jira/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/INFRA-13651
>
> On 12 March 2017 at 17:11, Ralph Goers 
> wrote:
>
>> Yes,
>>
>> If you could send the request to infra I would appreciate it.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Mar 12, 2017, at 1:13 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> The vote has been open for 5 days now. Based on the tallies and
>> discussions, it sounds like we'd like to merge the dev lists but keep the
>> user lists as is. Shall we move forward with combining them now?
>>
>> On 10 March 2017 at 12:27, Dominik Psenner 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Total agreement.
>>>
>>> On 10 Mar 2017 6:26 p.m., "Ralph Goers" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 This is exactly why we need one dev list. These last two responses
 dropped the other lists.  This is a horrible way to have discussions 
 that
 affect all the sub projects.

 Ralph


 On Mar 10, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:

 I'd love to see more unified configurations in all the subprojects.
 Gary mentioned that as an idea for log4cxx as that would make it 
 useful for
 his use case where they're using both Java and C++ in various projects.

 While the programming languages in use here (Java, .NET, PHP, and
 C++) aren't really compatible with each other, having similar 
 architectures
 and plugin systems could help a bit in this regard. Having more 
 inclusive
 conversations about this would be great.

 On 10 March 2017 at 04:29, Mikael Ståldal >>> .com> wrote:

> I think that a vast majority of our users only uses one of the
> languages we support, and therefore only are interested in one of the
> subprojects.
>
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Dominik Psenner <
> dpsen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We had once the discussion that we wanted all Apache Logging
>> projects to become very similar in their usage, starting with the 
>> same or a
>> very similar configuration. Given that we should aim towards one 
>> Apache
>> Logging specification and several Apache Logging spec

Re: [Discuss][VOTE] Combine the project user and dev mailing lists into user@ and dev@

[Ralph Goers]

Matt,

Any update on this?

Ralph

> On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Ralph Goers  wrote:
> 
> Thanks Matt!
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:15 AM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> 
>> No other opinions apparently. I suppose we'll go with the single list with 
>> bounce messages. I'll follow up with infra later today.
>> 
>> On 18 March 2017 at 13:12, Ralph Goers > > wrote:
>> OK. I guess I am fine with the bounce messages. Any other opinions?
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Mar 18, 2017, at 8:42 AM, Matt Sicker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> I got this response from Gavin:
>>> 
>>> Hi [~jvz] Sorry but I think I'm going to push back on that last request.
>>> 
>>> Merging the lists - no problem
>>> Merging all the subscribers - no problem
>>> Creating bounce messages directing people to use the merged target list - 
>>> no problem
>>> 
>>> People will know in advance this merger is going to take place, and if they 
>>> forget I think it'll take only one or two bounce messages to get the hint.
>>> 
>>> If you are :-
>>> 
>>> a) Happy with that - pick a date this can be done , let all lists users 
>>> know this is happening and the date then let me know.
>>> b) Not Happy with that - ping this ticket again and we'll escalate further.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> On 16 March 2017 at 22:23, Matt Sicker >> > wrote:
>>> Oh, I didn't realise I had a response on how to handle that. Let me follow 
>>> up with infra.
>>> 
>>> On 16 March 2017 at 21:46, Ralph Goers >> > wrote:
>>> Is there any follow-up to this?  
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Mar 12, 2017, at 9:30 PM, Ralph Goers >>> > wrote:
 
 1. That seems fine to me.
 2. Is it possible to do both? I like the idea of annoying the sender but 
 still allowing the email to be sent. It would cool if it could even add 
 [list] to the start of the subject line.
 3. This is the main thing that needs to happen.
 
 Ralph
 
 
 
> On Mar 12, 2017, at 7:49 PM, Matt Sicker  > wrote:
> 
> Some things:
> 
> 1. Archives won't be merged.
> 2. Infra suggests it might be a better idea to have the old email 
> addresses respond with a canned reply saying that the lists have moved 
> over to dev@, though they can set it up all as aliases if we prefer.
> 3. Current subscribers from all dev lists would be automatically 
> subscribed to the combined list.
> 
> So, use aliases or have the old addresses bounce back and inform senders 
> to use the new list?
> 
> On 12 March 2017 at 18:31, Matt Sicker  > wrote:
> Created a request, not sure if it's public: 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/INFRA-13651 
> 
> 
> On 12 March 2017 at 17:11, Ralph Goers  > wrote:
> Yes,
> 
> If you could send the request to infra I would appreciate it.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Mar 12, 2017, at 1:13 PM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> 
>> The vote has been open for 5 days now. Based on the tallies and 
>> discussions, it sounds like we'd like to merge the dev lists but keep 
>> the user lists as is. Shall we move forward with combining them now?
>> 
>> On 10 March 2017 at 12:27, Dominik Psenner > > wrote:
>> Total agreement.
>> 
>> On 10 Mar 2017 6:26 p.m., "Ralph Goers" > > wrote:
>> This is exactly why we need one dev list. These last two responses 
>> dropped the other lists.  This is a horrible way to have discussions 
>> that affect all the sub projects.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 10, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Matt Sicker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> I'd love to see more unified configurations in all the subprojects. 
>>> Gary mentioned that as an idea for log4cxx as that would make it useful 
>>> for his use case where they're using both Java and C++ in various 
>>> projects.
>>> 
>>> While the programming languages in use here (Java, .NET, PHP, and C++) 
>>> aren't really compatible with each other, having similar architectures 
>>> and plugin systems could help a bit in this regard. Having more 
>>> inclusive conversations about this would be great.
>>> 
>>> On 10 March 2017 at 04:29, Mikael Ståldal >> > wrote:
>>> I think that a vast majority of our users only uses one of the 
>>> languages we support, and therefore only are interested in one of the 
>>> subprojects.
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Dominik Psenner >> 

Re: [Discuss][VOTE] Combine the project user and dev mailing lists into user@ and dev@

[Ralph Goers]

Thanks Matt!

Ralph

> On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:15 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> No other opinions apparently. I suppose we'll go with the single list with 
> bounce messages. I'll follow up with infra later today.
> 
> On 18 March 2017 at 13:12, Ralph Goers  > wrote:
> OK. I guess I am fine with the bounce messages. Any other opinions?
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Mar 18, 2017, at 8:42 AM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> 
>> I got this response from Gavin:
>> 
>> Hi [~jvz] Sorry but I think I'm going to push back on that last request.
>> 
>> Merging the lists - no problem
>> Merging all the subscribers - no problem
>> Creating bounce messages directing people to use the merged target list - no 
>> problem
>> 
>> People will know in advance this merger is going to take place, and if they 
>> forget I think it'll take only one or two bounce messages to get the hint.
>> 
>> If you are :-
>> 
>> a) Happy with that - pick a date this can be done , let all lists users know 
>> this is happening and the date then let me know.
>> b) Not Happy with that - ping this ticket again and we'll escalate further.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> On 16 March 2017 at 22:23, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> Oh, I didn't realise I had a response on how to handle that. Let me follow 
>> up with infra.
>> 
>> On 16 March 2017 at 21:46, Ralph Goers > > wrote:
>> Is there any follow-up to this?  
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Mar 12, 2017, at 9:30 PM, Ralph Goers >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 1. That seems fine to me.
>>> 2. Is it possible to do both? I like the idea of annoying the sender but 
>>> still allowing the email to be sent. It would cool if it could even add 
>>> [list] to the start of the subject line.
>>> 3. This is the main thing that needs to happen.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On Mar 12, 2017, at 7:49 PM, Matt Sicker >>> > wrote:
 
 Some things:
 
 1. Archives won't be merged.
 2. Infra suggests it might be a better idea to have the old email 
 addresses respond with a canned reply saying that the lists have moved 
 over to dev@, though they can set it up all as aliases if we prefer.
 3. Current subscribers from all dev lists would be automatically 
 subscribed to the combined list.
 
 So, use aliases or have the old addresses bounce back and inform senders 
 to use the new list?
 
 On 12 March 2017 at 18:31, Matt Sicker >>> > wrote:
 Created a request, not sure if it's public: 
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/INFRA-13651 
 
 
 On 12 March 2017 at 17:11, Ralph Goers >>> > wrote:
 Yes,
 
 If you could send the request to infra I would appreciate it.
 
 Ralph
 
> On Mar 12, 2017, at 1:13 PM, Matt Sicker  > wrote:
> 
> The vote has been open for 5 days now. Based on the tallies and 
> discussions, it sounds like we'd like to merge the dev lists but keep the 
> user lists as is. Shall we move forward with combining them now?
> 
> On 10 March 2017 at 12:27, Dominik Psenner  > wrote:
> Total agreement.
> 
> On 10 Mar 2017 6:26 p.m., "Ralph Goers"  > wrote:
> This is exactly why we need one dev list. These last two responses 
> dropped the other lists.  This is a horrible way to have discussions that 
> affect all the sub projects.
> 
> Ralph
> 
> 
>> On Mar 10, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> 
>> I'd love to see more unified configurations in all the subprojects. Gary 
>> mentioned that as an idea for log4cxx as that would make it useful for 
>> his use case where they're using both Java and C++ in various projects.
>> 
>> While the programming languages in use here (Java, .NET, PHP, and C++) 
>> aren't really compatible with each other, having similar architectures 
>> and plugin systems could help a bit in this regard. Having more 
>> inclusive conversations about this would be great.
>> 
>> On 10 March 2017 at 04:29, Mikael Ståldal > > wrote:
>> I think that a vast majority of our users only uses one of the languages 
>> we support, and therefore only are interested in one of the subprojects.
>> 
>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Dominik Psenner > > wrote:
>> We had once the discussion that we wanted all Apache Logging projects to 
>> become very similar in their usage, starting with the same or a very 
>> similar configuration. Given that we should aim towards one Apache 
>>>

Re: [Discuss][VOTE] Combine the project user and dev mailing lists into user@ and dev@

[Matt Sicker]

No other opinions apparently. I suppose we'll go with the single list with
bounce messages. I'll follow up with infra later today.

On 18 March 2017 at 13:12, Ralph Goers  wrote:

> OK. I guess I am fine with the bounce messages. Any other opinions?
>
> Ralph
>
> On Mar 18, 2017, at 8:42 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> I got this response from Gavin:
>
> Hi [~jvz] Sorry but I think I'm going to push back on that last request.
>
> Merging the lists - no problem
> Merging all the subscribers - no problem
> Creating bounce messages directing people to use the merged target list -
> no problem
>
> People will know in advance this merger is going to take place, and if
> they forget I think it'll take only one or two bounce messages to get the
> hint.
>
> If you are :-
>
> a) Happy with that - pick a date this can be done , let all lists users
> know this is happening and the date then let me know.
> b) Not Happy with that - ping this ticket again and we'll escalate further.
>
> Thanks
>
> On 16 March 2017 at 22:23, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
>> Oh, I didn't realise I had a response on how to handle that. Let me
>> follow up with infra.
>>
>> On 16 March 2017 at 21:46, Ralph Goers 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there any follow-up to this?
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Mar 12, 2017, at 9:30 PM, Ralph Goers 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 1. That seems fine to me.
>>> 2. Is it possible to do both? I like the idea of annoying the sender but
>>> still allowing the email to be sent. It would cool if it could even add
>>> [list] to the start of the subject line.
>>> 3. This is the main thing that needs to happen.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 12, 2017, at 7:49 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>>
>>> Some things:
>>>
>>> 1. Archives won't be merged.
>>> 2. Infra suggests it might be a better idea to have the old email
>>> addresses respond with a canned reply saying that the lists have moved over
>>> to dev@, though they can set it up all as aliases if we prefer.
>>> 3. Current subscribers from all dev lists would be automatically
>>> subscribed to the combined list.
>>>
>>> So, use aliases or have the old addresses bounce back and inform senders
>>> to use the new list?
>>>
>>> On 12 March 2017 at 18:31, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>>
 Created a request, not sure if it's public: https://issues.apache.
 org/jira/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/INFRA-13651

 On 12 March 2017 at 17:11, Ralph Goers 
 wrote:

> Yes,
>
> If you could send the request to infra I would appreciate it.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Mar 12, 2017, at 1:13 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> The vote has been open for 5 days now. Based on the tallies and
> discussions, it sounds like we'd like to merge the dev lists but keep the
> user lists as is. Shall we move forward with combining them now?
>
> On 10 March 2017 at 12:27, Dominik Psenner  wrote:
>
>> Total agreement.
>>
>> On 10 Mar 2017 6:26 p.m., "Ralph Goers" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is exactly why we need one dev list. These last two responses
>>> dropped the other lists.  This is a horrible way to have discussions 
>>> that
>>> affect all the sub projects.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 10, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd love to see more unified configurations in all the subprojects.
>>> Gary mentioned that as an idea for log4cxx as that would make it useful 
>>> for
>>> his use case where they're using both Java and C++ in various projects.
>>>
>>> While the programming languages in use here (Java, .NET, PHP, and
>>> C++) aren't really compatible with each other, having similar 
>>> architectures
>>> and plugin systems could help a bit in this regard. Having more 
>>> inclusive
>>> conversations about this would be great.
>>>
>>> On 10 March 2017 at 04:29, Mikael Ståldal >> > wrote:
>>>
 I think that a vast majority of our users only uses one of the
 languages we support, and therefore only are interested in one of the
 subprojects.

 On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Dominik Psenner <
 dpsen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> We had once the discussion that we wanted all Apache Logging
> projects to become very similar in their usage, starting with the 
> same or a
> very similar configuration. Given that we should aim towards one 
> Apache
> Logging specification and several Apache Logging specification
> implementations in the form of Apache Logging subprojects. That means 
> all
> the devs for all subprojects have to talk more. To me this is a good
> reasons to merge the dev mailing lists. Further I don't see why the 
> same
> use case should not apply to the user mailing lists, too. Those 
> mailing
> lists see very low traffic but all of them need a larger audience. 
> J

Re: [Discuss][VOTE] Combine the project user and dev mailing lists into user@ and dev@

[Ralph Goers]

OK. I guess I am fine with the bounce messages. Any other opinions?

Ralph

> On Mar 18, 2017, at 8:42 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> I got this response from Gavin:
> 
> Hi [~jvz] Sorry but I think I'm going to push back on that last request.
> 
> Merging the lists - no problem
> Merging all the subscribers - no problem
> Creating bounce messages directing people to use the merged target list - no 
> problem
> 
> People will know in advance this merger is going to take place, and if they 
> forget I think it'll take only one or two bounce messages to get the hint.
> 
> If you are :-
> 
> a) Happy with that - pick a date this can be done , let all lists users know 
> this is happening and the date then let me know.
> b) Not Happy with that - ping this ticket again and we'll escalate further.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> On 16 March 2017 at 22:23, Matt Sicker  > wrote:
> Oh, I didn't realise I had a response on how to handle that. Let me follow up 
> with infra.
> 
> On 16 March 2017 at 21:46, Ralph Goers  > wrote:
> Is there any follow-up to this?  
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Mar 12, 2017, at 9:30 PM, Ralph Goers > > wrote:
>> 
>> 1. That seems fine to me.
>> 2. Is it possible to do both? I like the idea of annoying the sender but 
>> still allowing the email to be sent. It would cool if it could even add 
>> [list] to the start of the subject line.
>> 3. This is the main thing that needs to happen.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 12, 2017, at 7:49 PM, Matt Sicker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Some things:
>>> 
>>> 1. Archives won't be merged.
>>> 2. Infra suggests it might be a better idea to have the old email addresses 
>>> respond with a canned reply saying that the lists have moved over to dev@, 
>>> though they can set it up all as aliases if we prefer.
>>> 3. Current subscribers from all dev lists would be automatically subscribed 
>>> to the combined list.
>>> 
>>> So, use aliases or have the old addresses bounce back and inform senders to 
>>> use the new list?
>>> 
>>> On 12 March 2017 at 18:31, Matt Sicker >> > wrote:
>>> Created a request, not sure if it's public: 
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/INFRA-13651 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 12 March 2017 at 17:11, Ralph Goers >> > wrote:
>>> Yes,
>>> 
>>> If you could send the request to infra I would appreciate it.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Mar 12, 2017, at 1:13 PM, Matt Sicker >>> > wrote:
 
 The vote has been open for 5 days now. Based on the tallies and 
 discussions, it sounds like we'd like to merge the dev lists but keep the 
 user lists as is. Shall we move forward with combining them now?
 
 On 10 March 2017 at 12:27, Dominik Psenner >>> > wrote:
 Total agreement.
 
 On 10 Mar 2017 6:26 p.m., "Ralph Goers" >>> > wrote:
 This is exactly why we need one dev list. These last two responses dropped 
 the other lists.  This is a horrible way to have discussions that affect 
 all the sub projects.
 
 Ralph
 
 
> On Mar 10, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Matt Sicker  > wrote:
> 
> I'd love to see more unified configurations in all the subprojects. Gary 
> mentioned that as an idea for log4cxx as that would make it useful for 
> his use case where they're using both Java and C++ in various projects.
> 
> While the programming languages in use here (Java, .NET, PHP, and C++) 
> aren't really compatible with each other, having similar architectures 
> and plugin systems could help a bit in this regard. Having more inclusive 
> conversations about this would be great.
> 
> On 10 March 2017 at 04:29, Mikael Ståldal  > wrote:
> I think that a vast majority of our users only uses one of the languages 
> we support, and therefore only are interested in one of the subprojects.
> 
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Dominik Psenner  > wrote:
> We had once the discussion that we wanted all Apache Logging projects to 
> become very similar in their usage, starting with the same or a very 
> similar configuration. Given that we should aim towards one Apache 
> Logging specification and several Apache Logging specification 
> implementations in the form of Apache Logging subprojects. That means all 
> the devs for all subprojects have to talk more. To me this is a good 
> reasons to merge the dev mailing lists. Further I don't see why the same 
> use case should not apply to the user mailing lists, too. Those mailing 
> lists see very low traffic but all of them need a larger audience

Re: [Discuss][VOTE] Combine the project user and dev mailing lists into user@ and dev@

[Matt Sicker]

I got this response from Gavin:

Hi [~jvz] Sorry but I think I'm going to push back on that last request.

Merging the lists - no problem
Merging all the subscribers - no problem
Creating bounce messages directing people to use the merged target list -
no problem

People will know in advance this merger is going to take place, and if they
forget I think it'll take only one or two bounce messages to get the hint.

If you are :-

a) Happy with that - pick a date this can be done , let all lists users
know this is happening and the date then let me know.
b) Not Happy with that - ping this ticket again and we'll escalate further.

Thanks

On 16 March 2017 at 22:23, Matt Sicker  wrote:

> Oh, I didn't realise I had a response on how to handle that. Let me follow
> up with infra.
>
> On 16 March 2017 at 21:46, Ralph Goers  wrote:
>
>> Is there any follow-up to this?
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Mar 12, 2017, at 9:30 PM, Ralph Goers 
>> wrote:
>>
>> 1. That seems fine to me.
>> 2. Is it possible to do both? I like the idea of annoying the sender but
>> still allowing the email to be sent. It would cool if it could even add
>> [list] to the start of the subject line.
>> 3. This is the main thing that needs to happen.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 12, 2017, at 7:49 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> Some things:
>>
>> 1. Archives won't be merged.
>> 2. Infra suggests it might be a better idea to have the old email
>> addresses respond with a canned reply saying that the lists have moved over
>> to dev@, though they can set it up all as aliases if we prefer.
>> 3. Current subscribers from all dev lists would be automatically
>> subscribed to the combined list.
>>
>> So, use aliases or have the old addresses bounce back and inform senders
>> to use the new list?
>>
>> On 12 March 2017 at 18:31, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>>> Created a request, not sure if it's public: https://issues.apache.
>>> org/jira/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/INFRA-13651
>>>
>>> On 12 March 2017 at 17:11, Ralph Goers 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Yes,

 If you could send the request to infra I would appreciate it.

 Ralph

 On Mar 12, 2017, at 1:13 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:

 The vote has been open for 5 days now. Based on the tallies and
 discussions, it sounds like we'd like to merge the dev lists but keep the
 user lists as is. Shall we move forward with combining them now?

 On 10 March 2017 at 12:27, Dominik Psenner  wrote:

> Total agreement.
>
> On 10 Mar 2017 6:26 p.m., "Ralph Goers" 
> wrote:
>
>> This is exactly why we need one dev list. These last two responses
>> dropped the other lists.  This is a horrible way to have discussions that
>> affect all the sub projects.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> On Mar 10, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> I'd love to see more unified configurations in all the subprojects.
>> Gary mentioned that as an idea for log4cxx as that would make it useful 
>> for
>> his use case where they're using both Java and C++ in various projects.
>>
>> While the programming languages in use here (Java, .NET, PHP, and
>> C++) aren't really compatible with each other, having similar 
>> architectures
>> and plugin systems could help a bit in this regard. Having more inclusive
>> conversations about this would be great.
>>
>> On 10 March 2017 at 04:29, Mikael Ståldal 
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> I think that a vast majority of our users only uses one of the
>>> languages we support, and therefore only are interested in one of the
>>> subprojects.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Dominik Psenner <
>>> dpsen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 We had once the discussion that we wanted all Apache Logging
 projects to become very similar in their usage, starting with the same 
 or a
 very similar configuration. Given that we should aim towards one Apache
 Logging specification and several Apache Logging specification
 implementations in the form of Apache Logging subprojects. That means 
 all
 the devs for all subprojects have to talk more. To me this is a good
 reasons to merge the dev mailing lists. Further I don't see why the 
 same
 use case should not apply to the user mailing lists, too. Those mailing
 lists see very low traffic but all of them need a larger audience. Just
 quoting the last few messages of two user mailing lists I follow:

 log4j-user: the last topic came in a week ago, the topic before
 that about two weeks ago
 log4net-user: the last topic came in 24 hours ago and the topic
 before that a month ago

 Cheers
 On 2017-03-09 19:24, Ralph Goers wrote:

 We use general as mainly an announcement list for topics that might
 be of general interest to all logging pro

Re: [Discuss][VOTE] Combine the project user and dev mailing lists into user@ and dev@

[Matt Sicker]

Oh, I didn't realise I had a response on how to handle that. Let me follow
up with infra.

On 16 March 2017 at 21:46, Ralph Goers  wrote:

> Is there any follow-up to this?
>
> Ralph
>
> On Mar 12, 2017, at 9:30 PM, Ralph Goers 
> wrote:
>
> 1. That seems fine to me.
> 2. Is it possible to do both? I like the idea of annoying the sender but
> still allowing the email to be sent. It would cool if it could even add
> [list] to the start of the subject line.
> 3. This is the main thing that needs to happen.
>
> Ralph
>
>
>
> On Mar 12, 2017, at 7:49 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> Some things:
>
> 1. Archives won't be merged.
> 2. Infra suggests it might be a better idea to have the old email
> addresses respond with a canned reply saying that the lists have moved over
> to dev@, though they can set it up all as aliases if we prefer.
> 3. Current subscribers from all dev lists would be automatically
> subscribed to the combined list.
>
> So, use aliases or have the old addresses bounce back and inform senders
> to use the new list?
>
> On 12 March 2017 at 18:31, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
>> Created a request, not sure if it's public: https://issues.apache.
>> org/jira/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/INFRA-13651
>>
>> On 12 March 2017 at 17:11, Ralph Goers 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes,
>>>
>>> If you could send the request to infra I would appreciate it.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Mar 12, 2017, at 1:13 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>>
>>> The vote has been open for 5 days now. Based on the tallies and
>>> discussions, it sounds like we'd like to merge the dev lists but keep the
>>> user lists as is. Shall we move forward with combining them now?
>>>
>>> On 10 March 2017 at 12:27, Dominik Psenner  wrote:
>>>
 Total agreement.

 On 10 Mar 2017 6:26 p.m., "Ralph Goers" 
 wrote:

> This is exactly why we need one dev list. These last two responses
> dropped the other lists.  This is a horrible way to have discussions that
> affect all the sub projects.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> On Mar 10, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> I'd love to see more unified configurations in all the subprojects.
> Gary mentioned that as an idea for log4cxx as that would make it useful 
> for
> his use case where they're using both Java and C++ in various projects.
>
> While the programming languages in use here (Java, .NET, PHP, and C++)
> aren't really compatible with each other, having similar architectures and
> plugin systems could help a bit in this regard. Having more inclusive
> conversations about this would be great.
>
> On 10 March 2017 at 04:29, Mikael Ståldal 
> wrote:
>
>> I think that a vast majority of our users only uses one of the
>> languages we support, and therefore only are interested in one of the
>> subprojects.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Dominik Psenner > > wrote:
>>
>>> We had once the discussion that we wanted all Apache Logging
>>> projects to become very similar in their usage, starting with the same 
>>> or a
>>> very similar configuration. Given that we should aim towards one Apache
>>> Logging specification and several Apache Logging specification
>>> implementations in the form of Apache Logging subprojects. That means 
>>> all
>>> the devs for all subprojects have to talk more. To me this is a good
>>> reasons to merge the dev mailing lists. Further I don't see why the same
>>> use case should not apply to the user mailing lists, too. Those mailing
>>> lists see very low traffic but all of them need a larger audience. Just
>>> quoting the last few messages of two user mailing lists I follow:
>>>
>>> log4j-user: the last topic came in a week ago, the topic before that
>>> about two weeks ago
>>> log4net-user: the last topic came in 24 hours ago and the topic
>>> before that a month ago
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> On 2017-03-09 19:24, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>
>>> We use general as mainly an announcement list for topics that might
>>> be of general interest to all logging projects. Generally, these are 
>>> just
>>> release announcements.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 10:37 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>>
>>> Yeah, I agree that the user lists can remain separate as it doesn't
>>> cause any issues currently. The main idea here is whether we should 
>>> merge
>>> the dev lists into one, or if we need a common dev list for all devs to
>>> subscribe to (general@ doesn't sound appropriate, but I don't know
>>> what that list is for).
>>>
>>> On 9 March 2017 at 10:26, Ralph Goers 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 You should note that while we consider all votes only PMC votes are
 “binding”. I don’t think that changes much however.

 From a PMC perspective I have to say that keeping the user’s lists
 separate isn’t li

Re: [Discuss][VOTE] Combine the project user and dev mailing lists into user@ and dev@

[Ralph Goers]

Is there any follow-up to this?  

Ralph

> On Mar 12, 2017, at 9:30 PM, Ralph Goers  wrote:
> 
> 1. That seems fine to me.
> 2. Is it possible to do both? I like the idea of annoying the sender but 
> still allowing the email to be sent. It would cool if it could even add 
> [list] to the start of the subject line.
> 3. This is the main thing that needs to happen.
> 
> Ralph
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mar 12, 2017, at 7:49 PM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> 
>> Some things:
>> 
>> 1. Archives won't be merged.
>> 2. Infra suggests it might be a better idea to have the old email addresses 
>> respond with a canned reply saying that the lists have moved over to dev@, 
>> though they can set it up all as aliases if we prefer.
>> 3. Current subscribers from all dev lists would be automatically subscribed 
>> to the combined list.
>> 
>> So, use aliases or have the old addresses bounce back and inform senders to 
>> use the new list?
>> 
>> On 12 March 2017 at 18:31, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> Created a request, not sure if it's public: 
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/INFRA-13651 
>> 
>> 
>> On 12 March 2017 at 17:11, Ralph Goers > > wrote:
>> Yes,
>> 
>> If you could send the request to infra I would appreciate it.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Mar 12, 2017, at 1:13 PM, Matt Sicker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> The vote has been open for 5 days now. Based on the tallies and 
>>> discussions, it sounds like we'd like to merge the dev lists but keep the 
>>> user lists as is. Shall we move forward with combining them now?
>>> 
>>> On 10 March 2017 at 12:27, Dominik Psenner >> > wrote:
>>> Total agreement.
>>> 
>>> On 10 Mar 2017 6:26 p.m., "Ralph Goers" >> > wrote:
>>> This is exactly why we need one dev list. These last two responses dropped 
>>> the other lists.  This is a horrible way to have discussions that affect 
>>> all the sub projects.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
>>> 
 On Mar 10, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Matt Sicker >>> > wrote:
 
 I'd love to see more unified configurations in all the subprojects. Gary 
 mentioned that as an idea for log4cxx as that would make it useful for his 
 use case where they're using both Java and C++ in various projects.
 
 While the programming languages in use here (Java, .NET, PHP, and C++) 
 aren't really compatible with each other, having similar architectures and 
 plugin systems could help a bit in this regard. Having more inclusive 
 conversations about this would be great.
 
 On 10 March 2017 at 04:29, Mikael Ståldal >>> > wrote:
 I think that a vast majority of our users only uses one of the languages 
 we support, and therefore only are interested in one of the subprojects.
 
 On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Dominik Psenner >>> > wrote:
 We had once the discussion that we wanted all Apache Logging projects to 
 become very similar in their usage, starting with the same or a very 
 similar configuration. Given that we should aim towards one Apache Logging 
 specification and several Apache Logging specification implementations in 
 the form of Apache Logging subprojects. That means all the devs for all 
 subprojects have to talk more. To me this is a good reasons to merge the 
 dev mailing lists. Further I don't see why the same use case should not 
 apply to the user mailing lists, too. Those mailing lists see very low 
 traffic but all of them need a larger audience. Just quoting the last few 
 messages of two user mailing lists I follow:
 
 log4j-user: the last topic came in a week ago, the topic before that about 
 two weeks ago
 log4net-user: the last topic came in 24 hours ago and the topic before 
 that a month ago
 
 Cheers
 
 On 2017-03-09 19:24, Ralph Goers wrote:
> We use general as mainly an announcement list for topics that might be of 
> general interest to all logging projects. Generally, these are just 
> release announcements.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 10:37 AM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> 
>> Yeah, I agree that the user lists can remain separate as it doesn't 
>> cause any issues currently. The main idea here is whether we should 
>> merge the dev lists into one, or if we need a common dev list for all 
>> devs to subscribe to (general@ doesn't sound appropriate, but I don't 
>> know what that list is for).
>> 
>> On 9 March 2017 at 10:26, Ralph Goers > > wrote:
>> You should note that while we consider all votes only PMC votes are 
>> “binding”. I don’t th

Re: [Discuss][VOTE] Combine the project user and dev mailing lists into user@ and dev@

[Ralph Goers]

1. That seems fine to me.
2. Is it possible to do both? I like the idea of annoying the sender but still 
allowing the email to be sent. It would cool if it could even add [list] to the 
start of the subject line.
3. This is the main thing that needs to happen.

Ralph



> On Mar 12, 2017, at 7:49 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> Some things:
> 
> 1. Archives won't be merged.
> 2. Infra suggests it might be a better idea to have the old email addresses 
> respond with a canned reply saying that the lists have moved over to dev@, 
> though they can set it up all as aliases if we prefer.
> 3. Current subscribers from all dev lists would be automatically subscribed 
> to the combined list.
> 
> So, use aliases or have the old addresses bounce back and inform senders to 
> use the new list?
> 
> On 12 March 2017 at 18:31, Matt Sicker  > wrote:
> Created a request, not sure if it's public: 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/INFRA-13651 
> 
> 
> On 12 March 2017 at 17:11, Ralph Goers  > wrote:
> Yes,
> 
> If you could send the request to infra I would appreciate it.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Mar 12, 2017, at 1:13 PM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> 
>> The vote has been open for 5 days now. Based on the tallies and discussions, 
>> it sounds like we'd like to merge the dev lists but keep the user lists as 
>> is. Shall we move forward with combining them now?
>> 
>> On 10 March 2017 at 12:27, Dominik Psenner > > wrote:
>> Total agreement.
>> 
>> On 10 Mar 2017 6:26 p.m., "Ralph Goers" > > wrote:
>> This is exactly why we need one dev list. These last two responses dropped 
>> the other lists.  This is a horrible way to have discussions that affect all 
>> the sub projects.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 10, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Matt Sicker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> I'd love to see more unified configurations in all the subprojects. Gary 
>>> mentioned that as an idea for log4cxx as that would make it useful for his 
>>> use case where they're using both Java and C++ in various projects.
>>> 
>>> While the programming languages in use here (Java, .NET, PHP, and C++) 
>>> aren't really compatible with each other, having similar architectures and 
>>> plugin systems could help a bit in this regard. Having more inclusive 
>>> conversations about this would be great.
>>> 
>>> On 10 March 2017 at 04:29, Mikael Ståldal >> > wrote:
>>> I think that a vast majority of our users only uses one of the languages we 
>>> support, and therefore only are interested in one of the subprojects.
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Dominik Psenner >> > wrote:
>>> We had once the discussion that we wanted all Apache Logging projects to 
>>> become very similar in their usage, starting with the same or a very 
>>> similar configuration. Given that we should aim towards one Apache Logging 
>>> specification and several Apache Logging specification implementations in 
>>> the form of Apache Logging subprojects. That means all the devs for all 
>>> subprojects have to talk more. To me this is a good reasons to merge the 
>>> dev mailing lists. Further I don't see why the same use case should not 
>>> apply to the user mailing lists, too. Those mailing lists see very low 
>>> traffic but all of them need a larger audience. Just quoting the last few 
>>> messages of two user mailing lists I follow:
>>> 
>>> log4j-user: the last topic came in a week ago, the topic before that about 
>>> two weeks ago
>>> log4net-user: the last topic came in 24 hours ago and the topic before that 
>>> a month ago
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> 
>>> On 2017-03-09 19:24, Ralph Goers wrote:
 We use general as mainly an announcement list for topics that might be of 
 general interest to all logging projects. Generally, these are just 
 release announcements.
 
 Ralph
 
> On Mar 9, 2017, at 10:37 AM, Matt Sicker  > wrote:
> 
> Yeah, I agree that the user lists can remain separate as it doesn't cause 
> any issues currently. The main idea here is whether we should merge the 
> dev lists into one, or if we need a common dev list for all devs to 
> subscribe to (general@ doesn't sound appropriate, but I don't know what 
> that list is for).
> 
> On 9 March 2017 at 10:26, Ralph Goers  > wrote:
> You should note that while we consider all votes only PMC votes are 
> “binding”. I don’t think that changes much however.
> 
> From a PMC perspective I have to say that keeping the user’s lists 
> separate isn’t likely to be an issue as most of the things that would 
> need to be discussed would be on a dev list anyway.
>>

Re: [Discuss][VOTE] Combine the project user and dev mailing lists into user@ and dev@

[Matt Sicker]

Some things:

1. Archives won't be merged.
2. Infra suggests it might be a better idea to have the old email addresses
respond with a canned reply saying that the lists have moved over to dev@,
though they can set it up all as aliases if we prefer.
3. Current subscribers from all dev lists would be automatically subscribed
to the combined list.

So, use aliases or have the old addresses bounce back and inform senders to
use the new list?

On 12 March 2017 at 18:31, Matt Sicker  wrote:

> Created a request, not sure if it's public: https://issues.apache.
> org/jira/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/INFRA-13651
>
> On 12 March 2017 at 17:11, Ralph Goers  wrote:
>
>> Yes,
>>
>> If you could send the request to infra I would appreciate it.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Mar 12, 2017, at 1:13 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> The vote has been open for 5 days now. Based on the tallies and
>> discussions, it sounds like we'd like to merge the dev lists but keep the
>> user lists as is. Shall we move forward with combining them now?
>>
>> On 10 March 2017 at 12:27, Dominik Psenner  wrote:
>>
>>> Total agreement.
>>>
>>> On 10 Mar 2017 6:26 p.m., "Ralph Goers" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 This is exactly why we need one dev list. These last two responses
 dropped the other lists.  This is a horrible way to have discussions that
 affect all the sub projects.

 Ralph


 On Mar 10, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:

 I'd love to see more unified configurations in all the subprojects.
 Gary mentioned that as an idea for log4cxx as that would make it useful for
 his use case where they're using both Java and C++ in various projects.

 While the programming languages in use here (Java, .NET, PHP, and C++)
 aren't really compatible with each other, having similar architectures and
 plugin systems could help a bit in this regard. Having more inclusive
 conversations about this would be great.

 On 10 March 2017 at 04:29, Mikael Ståldal 
 wrote:

> I think that a vast majority of our users only uses one of the
> languages we support, and therefore only are interested in one of the
> subprojects.
>
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Dominik Psenner 
>  wrote:
>
>> We had once the discussion that we wanted all Apache Logging projects
>> to become very similar in their usage, starting with the same or a very
>> similar configuration. Given that we should aim towards one Apache 
>> Logging
>> specification and several Apache Logging specification implementations in
>> the form of Apache Logging subprojects. That means all the devs for all
>> subprojects have to talk more. To me this is a good reasons to merge the
>> dev mailing lists. Further I don't see why the same use case should not
>> apply to the user mailing lists, too. Those mailing lists see very low
>> traffic but all of them need a larger audience. Just quoting the last few
>> messages of two user mailing lists I follow:
>>
>> log4j-user: the last topic came in a week ago, the topic before that
>> about two weeks ago
>> log4net-user: the last topic came in 24 hours ago and the topic
>> before that a month ago
>>
>> Cheers
>> On 2017-03-09 19:24, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>> We use general as mainly an announcement list for topics that might
>> be of general interest to all logging projects. Generally, these are just
>> release announcements.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 10:37 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, I agree that the user lists can remain separate as it doesn't
>> cause any issues currently. The main idea here is whether we should merge
>> the dev lists into one, or if we need a common dev list for all devs to
>> subscribe to (general@ doesn't sound appropriate, but I don't know
>> what that list is for).
>>
>> On 9 March 2017 at 10:26, Ralph Goers 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You should note that while we consider all votes only PMC votes are
>>> “binding”. I don’t think that changes much however.
>>>
>>> From a PMC perspective I have to say that keeping the user’s lists
>>> separate isn’t likely to be an issue as most of the things that would 
>>> need
>>> to be discussed would be on a dev list anyway.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 2:45 AM, Dominik Psenner 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The votes are way too scattered over the different mailing lists so
>>> that I didn't even find my own vote. ;-) Therefore I'm trying to 
>>> summarize
>>> the current state of the vote:
>>>
>>> log4j-dev@, log4php-dev@, log4net-dev@, log4cxx-dev@ -> 
>>> d...@logging.apache.org
>>>
>>> Matt Sicker: +1
>>> Ralph Goers: +1
>>> Stefan Bodewig: +1
>>> Sven Rautenverg: -1
>>> Thorsten Schöning: -0
>>> Ivan Habunek: -0
>>> Dominik Psenner: +1

Re: [Discuss][VOTE] Combine the project user and dev mailing lists into user@ and dev@

[Matt Sicker]

Created a request, not sure if it's public:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/INFRA-13651

On 12 March 2017 at 17:11, Ralph Goers  wrote:

> Yes,
>
> If you could send the request to infra I would appreciate it.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Mar 12, 2017, at 1:13 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> The vote has been open for 5 days now. Based on the tallies and
> discussions, it sounds like we'd like to merge the dev lists but keep the
> user lists as is. Shall we move forward with combining them now?
>
> On 10 March 2017 at 12:27, Dominik Psenner  wrote:
>
>> Total agreement.
>>
>> On 10 Mar 2017 6:26 p.m., "Ralph Goers" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is exactly why we need one dev list. These last two responses
>>> dropped the other lists.  This is a horrible way to have discussions that
>>> affect all the sub projects.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 10, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd love to see more unified configurations in all the subprojects. Gary
>>> mentioned that as an idea for log4cxx as that would make it useful for his
>>> use case where they're using both Java and C++ in various projects.
>>>
>>> While the programming languages in use here (Java, .NET, PHP, and C++)
>>> aren't really compatible with each other, having similar architectures and
>>> plugin systems could help a bit in this regard. Having more inclusive
>>> conversations about this would be great.
>>>
>>> On 10 March 2017 at 04:29, Mikael Ståldal 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I think that a vast majority of our users only uses one of the
 languages we support, and therefore only are interested in one of the
 subprojects.

 On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Dominik Psenner 
 wrote:

> We had once the discussion that we wanted all Apache Logging projects
> to become very similar in their usage, starting with the same or a very
> similar configuration. Given that we should aim towards one Apache Logging
> specification and several Apache Logging specification implementations in
> the form of Apache Logging subprojects. That means all the devs for all
> subprojects have to talk more. To me this is a good reasons to merge the
> dev mailing lists. Further I don't see why the same use case should not
> apply to the user mailing lists, too. Those mailing lists see very low
> traffic but all of them need a larger audience. Just quoting the last few
> messages of two user mailing lists I follow:
>
> log4j-user: the last topic came in a week ago, the topic before that
> about two weeks ago
> log4net-user: the last topic came in 24 hours ago and the topic before
> that a month ago
>
> Cheers
> On 2017-03-09 19:24, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> We use general as mainly an announcement list for topics that might be
> of general interest to all logging projects. Generally, these are just
> release announcements.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Mar 9, 2017, at 10:37 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> Yeah, I agree that the user lists can remain separate as it doesn't
> cause any issues currently. The main idea here is whether we should merge
> the dev lists into one, or if we need a common dev list for all devs to
> subscribe to (general@ doesn't sound appropriate, but I don't know
> what that list is for).
>
> On 9 March 2017 at 10:26, Ralph Goers 
> wrote:
>
>> You should note that while we consider all votes only PMC votes are
>> “binding”. I don’t think that changes much however.
>>
>> From a PMC perspective I have to say that keeping the user’s lists
>> separate isn’t likely to be an issue as most of the things that would 
>> need
>> to be discussed would be on a dev list anyway.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 2:45 AM, Dominik Psenner 
>> wrote:
>>
>> The votes are way too scattered over the different mailing lists so
>> that I didn't even find my own vote. ;-) Therefore I'm trying to 
>> summarize
>> the current state of the vote:
>>
>> log4j-dev@, log4php-dev@, log4net-dev@, log4cxx-dev@ -> 
>> d...@logging.apache.org
>>
>> Matt Sicker: +1
>> Ralph Goers: +1
>> Stefan Bodewig: +1
>> Sven Rautenverg: -1
>> Thorsten Schöning: -0
>> Ivan Habunek: -0
>> Dominik Psenner: +1
>> Remko Popma: +1
>> Mikael Ståldal: +0
>>
>> Totals so far:
>> +1: 5
>> +0: 1
>> -0: 2
>> -1: 1
>>
>> log4j-user@, log4php-user@, log4net-user@, log4cxx-user@, general@ -> 
>> u...@logging.apache.org
>>
>> Matt Sicker: -1
>> Ralph Goers: +1
>> Stefan Bodewig: -1
>> Sven Rautenverg: -1
>> Thorsten Schöning: -0
>> Ivan Habunek: -0
>> Dominik Psenner: +1
>> Remko Popma: +1
>> Mikael Ståldal: -1
>>
>> Totals so far:
>> +1: 3
>> +0: 0
>> -0: 2
>> -1: 4
>>
>> Sorry to anyone who's vote is missing.

Re: [Discuss][VOTE] Combine the project user and dev mailing lists into user@ and dev@

[Ralph Goers]

Yes,

If you could send the request to infra I would appreciate it.

Ralph

> On Mar 12, 2017, at 1:13 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> The vote has been open for 5 days now. Based on the tallies and discussions, 
> it sounds like we'd like to merge the dev lists but keep the user lists as 
> is. Shall we move forward with combining them now?
> 
> On 10 March 2017 at 12:27, Dominik Psenner  > wrote:
> Total agreement.
> 
> On 10 Mar 2017 6:26 p.m., "Ralph Goers"  > wrote:
> This is exactly why we need one dev list. These last two responses dropped 
> the other lists.  This is a horrible way to have discussions that affect all 
> the sub projects.
> 
> Ralph
> 
> 
>> On Mar 10, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> 
>> I'd love to see more unified configurations in all the subprojects. Gary 
>> mentioned that as an idea for log4cxx as that would make it useful for his 
>> use case where they're using both Java and C++ in various projects.
>> 
>> While the programming languages in use here (Java, .NET, PHP, and C++) 
>> aren't really compatible with each other, having similar architectures and 
>> plugin systems could help a bit in this regard. Having more inclusive 
>> conversations about this would be great.
>> 
>> On 10 March 2017 at 04:29, Mikael Ståldal > > wrote:
>> I think that a vast majority of our users only uses one of the languages we 
>> support, and therefore only are interested in one of the subprojects.
>> 
>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Dominik Psenner > > wrote:
>> We had once the discussion that we wanted all Apache Logging projects to 
>> become very similar in their usage, starting with the same or a very similar 
>> configuration. Given that we should aim towards one Apache Logging 
>> specification and several Apache Logging specification implementations in 
>> the form of Apache Logging subprojects. That means all the devs for all 
>> subprojects have to talk more. To me this is a good reasons to merge the dev 
>> mailing lists. Further I don't see why the same use case should not apply to 
>> the user mailing lists, too. Those mailing lists see very low traffic but 
>> all of them need a larger audience. Just quoting the last few messages of 
>> two user mailing lists I follow:
>> 
>> log4j-user: the last topic came in a week ago, the topic before that about 
>> two weeks ago
>> log4net-user: the last topic came in 24 hours ago and the topic before that 
>> a month ago
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> On 2017-03-09 19:24, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>> We use general as mainly an announcement list for topics that might be of 
>>> general interest to all logging projects. Generally, these are just release 
>>> announcements.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Mar 9, 2017, at 10:37 AM, Matt Sicker >>> > wrote:
 
 Yeah, I agree that the user lists can remain separate as it doesn't cause 
 any issues currently. The main idea here is whether we should merge the 
 dev lists into one, or if we need a common dev list for all devs to 
 subscribe to (general@ doesn't sound appropriate, but I don't know what 
 that list is for).
 
 On 9 March 2017 at 10:26, Ralph Goers >>> > wrote:
 You should note that while we consider all votes only PMC votes are 
 “binding”. I don’t think that changes much however.
 
 From a PMC perspective I have to say that keeping the user’s lists 
 separate isn’t likely to be an issue as most of the things that would need 
 to be discussed would be on a dev list anyway.
 
 Ralph
 
> On Mar 9, 2017, at 2:45 AM, Dominik Psenner  > wrote:
> 
> The votes are way too scattered over the different mailing lists so that 
> I didn't even find my own vote. ;-) Therefore I'm trying to summarize the 
> current state of the vote:
> 
> log4j-dev@, log4php-dev@, log4net-dev@, log4cxx-dev@ -> 
> d...@logging.apache.org 
> Matt Sicker: +1
> Ralph Goers: +1
> Stefan Bodewig: +1
> Sven Rautenverg: -1
> Thorsten Schöning: -0
> Ivan Habunek: -0
> Dominik Psenner: +1
> Remko Popma: +1
> Mikael Ståldal: +0
> 
> Totals so far:
> +1: 5
> +0: 1
> -0: 2
> -1: 1
> 
> log4j-user@, log4php-user@, log4net-user@, log4cxx-user@, general@ -> 
> u...@logging.apache.org 
> 
> Matt Sicker: -1
> Ralph Goers: +1
> Stefan Bodewig: -1
> Sven Rautenverg: -1
> Thorsten Schöning: -0
> Ivan Habunek: -0
> Dominik Psenner: +1
> Remko Popma: +1
> Mikael Ståldal: -1
> 
> Totals so far:
> +1: 3
> +0: 0
> -0: 2
> -1: 4
> Sorry to anyone who's vote is missing.
> 
> On 2017-03-08 05:20, Matt Sicker w

Re: [Discuss][VOTE] Combine the project user and dev mailing lists into user@ and dev@

[Matt Sicker]

The vote has been open for 5 days now. Based on the tallies and
discussions, it sounds like we'd like to merge the dev lists but keep the
user lists as is. Shall we move forward with combining them now?

On 10 March 2017 at 12:27, Dominik Psenner  wrote:

> Total agreement.
>
> On 10 Mar 2017 6:26 p.m., "Ralph Goers" 
> wrote:
>
>> This is exactly why we need one dev list. These last two responses
>> dropped the other lists.  This is a horrible way to have discussions that
>> affect all the sub projects.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> On Mar 10, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> I'd love to see more unified configurations in all the subprojects. Gary
>> mentioned that as an idea for log4cxx as that would make it useful for his
>> use case where they're using both Java and C++ in various projects.
>>
>> While the programming languages in use here (Java, .NET, PHP, and C++)
>> aren't really compatible with each other, having similar architectures and
>> plugin systems could help a bit in this regard. Having more inclusive
>> conversations about this would be great.
>>
>> On 10 March 2017 at 04:29, Mikael Ståldal 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think that a vast majority of our users only uses one of the languages
>>> we support, and therefore only are interested in one of the subprojects.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Dominik Psenner  w
>>> rote:
>>>
 We had once the discussion that we wanted all Apache Logging projects
 to become very similar in their usage, starting with the same or a very
 similar configuration. Given that we should aim towards one Apache Logging
 specification and several Apache Logging specification implementations in
 the form of Apache Logging subprojects. That means all the devs for all
 subprojects have to talk more. To me this is a good reasons to merge the
 dev mailing lists. Further I don't see why the same use case should not
 apply to the user mailing lists, too. Those mailing lists see very low
 traffic but all of them need a larger audience. Just quoting the last few
 messages of two user mailing lists I follow:

 log4j-user: the last topic came in a week ago, the topic before that
 about two weeks ago
 log4net-user: the last topic came in 24 hours ago and the topic before
 that a month ago

 Cheers
 On 2017-03-09 19:24, Ralph Goers wrote:

 We use general as mainly an announcement list for topics that might be
 of general interest to all logging projects. Generally, these are just
 release announcements.

 Ralph

 On Mar 9, 2017, at 10:37 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:

 Yeah, I agree that the user lists can remain separate as it doesn't
 cause any issues currently. The main idea here is whether we should merge
 the dev lists into one, or if we need a common dev list for all devs to
 subscribe to (general@ doesn't sound appropriate, but I don't know
 what that list is for).

 On 9 March 2017 at 10:26, Ralph Goers 
 wrote:

> You should note that while we consider all votes only PMC votes are
> “binding”. I don’t think that changes much however.
>
> From a PMC perspective I have to say that keeping the user’s lists
> separate isn’t likely to be an issue as most of the things that would need
> to be discussed would be on a dev list anyway.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Mar 9, 2017, at 2:45 AM, Dominik Psenner 
> wrote:
>
> The votes are way too scattered over the different mailing lists so
> that I didn't even find my own vote. ;-) Therefore I'm trying to summarize
> the current state of the vote:
>
> log4j-dev@, log4php-dev@, log4net-dev@, log4cxx-dev@ -> 
> d...@logging.apache.org
>
> Matt Sicker: +1
> Ralph Goers: +1
> Stefan Bodewig: +1
> Sven Rautenverg: -1
> Thorsten Schöning: -0
> Ivan Habunek: -0
> Dominik Psenner: +1
> Remko Popma: +1
> Mikael Ståldal: +0
>
> Totals so far:
> +1: 5
> +0: 1
> -0: 2
> -1: 1
>
> log4j-user@, log4php-user@, log4net-user@, log4cxx-user@, general@ -> 
> u...@logging.apache.org
>
> Matt Sicker: -1
> Ralph Goers: +1
> Stefan Bodewig: -1
> Sven Rautenverg: -1
> Thorsten Schöning: -0
> Ivan Habunek: -0
> Dominik Psenner: +1
> Remko Popma: +1
> Mikael Ståldal: -1
>
> Totals so far:
> +1: 3
> +0: 0
> -0: 2
> -1: 4
>
> Sorry to anyone who's vote is missing.
>
> On 2017-03-08 05:20, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
> I may be missing some mailing lists considering I just subscribed to
> half of them less than five minutes ago.
>
> This is a vote to merge the various Apache Logging Services mailing
> lists. The proposal is to combine them as follows:
>
> log4j-dev@, log4php-dev@, log4net-dev@, log4cxx-dev@ ->
> d...@logging.apache.org
> log4j-user@, log4php-user@, log4net-user

Re: [Discuss][VOTE] Combine the project user and dev mailing lists into user@ and dev@

[Dominik Psenner]

Total agreement.

On 10 Mar 2017 6:26 p.m., "Ralph Goers"  wrote:

> This is exactly why we need one dev list. These last two responses dropped
> the other lists.  This is a horrible way to have discussions that affect
> all the sub projects.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> On Mar 10, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> I'd love to see more unified configurations in all the subprojects. Gary
> mentioned that as an idea for log4cxx as that would make it useful for his
> use case where they're using both Java and C++ in various projects.
>
> While the programming languages in use here (Java, .NET, PHP, and C++)
> aren't really compatible with each other, having similar architectures and
> plugin systems could help a bit in this regard. Having more inclusive
> conversations about this would be great.
>
> On 10 March 2017 at 04:29, Mikael Ståldal 
> wrote:
>
>> I think that a vast majority of our users only uses one of the languages
>> we support, and therefore only are interested in one of the subprojects.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Dominik Psenner  w
>> rote:
>>
>>> We had once the discussion that we wanted all Apache Logging projects to
>>> become very similar in their usage, starting with the same or a very
>>> similar configuration. Given that we should aim towards one Apache Logging
>>> specification and several Apache Logging specification implementations in
>>> the form of Apache Logging subprojects. That means all the devs for all
>>> subprojects have to talk more. To me this is a good reasons to merge the
>>> dev mailing lists. Further I don't see why the same use case should not
>>> apply to the user mailing lists, too. Those mailing lists see very low
>>> traffic but all of them need a larger audience. Just quoting the last few
>>> messages of two user mailing lists I follow:
>>>
>>> log4j-user: the last topic came in a week ago, the topic before that
>>> about two weeks ago
>>> log4net-user: the last topic came in 24 hours ago and the topic before
>>> that a month ago
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> On 2017-03-09 19:24, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>
>>> We use general as mainly an announcement list for topics that might be
>>> of general interest to all logging projects. Generally, these are just
>>> release announcements.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 10:37 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>>
>>> Yeah, I agree that the user lists can remain separate as it doesn't
>>> cause any issues currently. The main idea here is whether we should merge
>>> the dev lists into one, or if we need a common dev list for all devs to
>>> subscribe to (general@ doesn't sound appropriate, but I don't know what
>>> that list is for).
>>>
>>> On 9 March 2017 at 10:26, Ralph Goers 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 You should note that while we consider all votes only PMC votes are
 “binding”. I don’t think that changes much however.

 From a PMC perspective I have to say that keeping the user’s lists
 separate isn’t likely to be an issue as most of the things that would need
 to be discussed would be on a dev list anyway.

 Ralph

 On Mar 9, 2017, at 2:45 AM, Dominik Psenner  wrote:

 The votes are way too scattered over the different mailing lists so
 that I didn't even find my own vote. ;-) Therefore I'm trying to summarize
 the current state of the vote:

 log4j-dev@, log4php-dev@, log4net-dev@, log4cxx-dev@ -> 
 d...@logging.apache.org

 Matt Sicker: +1
 Ralph Goers: +1
 Stefan Bodewig: +1
 Sven Rautenverg: -1
 Thorsten Schöning: -0
 Ivan Habunek: -0
 Dominik Psenner: +1
 Remko Popma: +1
 Mikael Ståldal: +0

 Totals so far:
 +1: 5
 +0: 1
 -0: 2
 -1: 1

 log4j-user@, log4php-user@, log4net-user@, log4cxx-user@, general@ -> 
 u...@logging.apache.org

 Matt Sicker: -1
 Ralph Goers: +1
 Stefan Bodewig: -1
 Sven Rautenverg: -1
 Thorsten Schöning: -0
 Ivan Habunek: -0
 Dominik Psenner: +1
 Remko Popma: +1
 Mikael Ståldal: -1

 Totals so far:
 +1: 3
 +0: 0
 -0: 2
 -1: 4

 Sorry to anyone who's vote is missing.

 On 2017-03-08 05:20, Matt Sicker wrote:

 I may be missing some mailing lists considering I just subscribed to
 half of them less than five minutes ago.

 This is a vote to merge the various Apache Logging Services mailing
 lists. The proposal is to combine them as follows:

 log4j-dev@, log4php-dev@, log4net-dev@, log4cxx-dev@ ->
 d...@logging.apache.org
 log4j-user@, log4php-user@, log4net-user@, log4cxx-user@, general@ ->
 u...@logging.apache.org

 commits@ and private@ remain the same as before.

 The proposal would also suggest that the old emails become aliases for
 the combined email names so as not to lose any future emails. To
 distinguish between projects, a subject tag can be added such as:

 [java]
 [net]
 [cxx]
 [php]

Re: [Discuss][VOTE] Combine the project user and dev mailing lists into user@ and dev@

[Ralph Goers]

This is exactly why we need one dev list. These last two responses dropped the 
other lists.  This is a horrible way to have discussions that affect all the 
sub projects.

Ralph


> On Mar 10, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> I'd love to see more unified configurations in all the subprojects. Gary 
> mentioned that as an idea for log4cxx as that would make it useful for his 
> use case where they're using both Java and C++ in various projects.
> 
> While the programming languages in use here (Java, .NET, PHP, and C++) aren't 
> really compatible with each other, having similar architectures and plugin 
> systems could help a bit in this regard. Having more inclusive conversations 
> about this would be great.
> 
> On 10 March 2017 at 04:29, Mikael Ståldal  > wrote:
> I think that a vast majority of our users only uses one of the languages we 
> support, and therefore only are interested in one of the subprojects.
> 
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Dominik Psenner  > wrote:
> We had once the discussion that we wanted all Apache Logging projects to 
> become very similar in their usage, starting with the same or a very similar 
> configuration. Given that we should aim towards one Apache Logging 
> specification and several Apache Logging specification implementations in the 
> form of Apache Logging subprojects. That means all the devs for all 
> subprojects have to talk more. To me this is a good reasons to merge the dev 
> mailing lists. Further I don't see why the same use case should not apply to 
> the user mailing lists, too. Those mailing lists see very low traffic but all 
> of them need a larger audience. Just quoting the last few messages of two 
> user mailing lists I follow:
> 
> log4j-user: the last topic came in a week ago, the topic before that about 
> two weeks ago
> log4net-user: the last topic came in 24 hours ago and the topic before that a 
> month ago
> 
> Cheers
> 
> On 2017-03-09 19:24, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> We use general as mainly an announcement list for topics that might be of 
>> general interest to all logging projects. Generally, these are just release 
>> announcements.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 10:37 AM, Matt Sicker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Yeah, I agree that the user lists can remain separate as it doesn't cause 
>>> any issues currently. The main idea here is whether we should merge the dev 
>>> lists into one, or if we need a common dev list for all devs to subscribe 
>>> to (general@ doesn't sound appropriate, but I don't know what that list is 
>>> for).
>>> 
>>> On 9 March 2017 at 10:26, Ralph Goers >> > wrote:
>>> You should note that while we consider all votes only PMC votes are 
>>> “binding”. I don’t think that changes much however.
>>> 
>>> From a PMC perspective I have to say that keeping the user’s lists separate 
>>> isn’t likely to be an issue as most of the things that would need to be 
>>> discussed would be on a dev list anyway.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Mar 9, 2017, at 2:45 AM, Dominik Psenner >>> > wrote:
 
 The votes are way too scattered over the different mailing lists so that I 
 didn't even find my own vote. ;-) Therefore I'm trying to summarize the 
 current state of the vote:
 
 log4j-dev@, log4php-dev@, log4net-dev@, log4cxx-dev@ -> 
 d...@logging.apache.org 
 Matt Sicker: +1
 Ralph Goers: +1
 Stefan Bodewig: +1
 Sven Rautenverg: -1
 Thorsten Schöning: -0
 Ivan Habunek: -0
 Dominik Psenner: +1
 Remko Popma: +1
 Mikael Ståldal: +0
 
 Totals so far:
 +1: 5
 +0: 1
 -0: 2
 -1: 1
 
 log4j-user@, log4php-user@, log4net-user@, log4cxx-user@, general@ -> 
 u...@logging.apache.org 
 
 Matt Sicker: -1
 Ralph Goers: +1
 Stefan Bodewig: -1
 Sven Rautenverg: -1
 Thorsten Schöning: -0
 Ivan Habunek: -0
 Dominik Psenner: +1
 Remko Popma: +1
 Mikael Ståldal: -1
 
 Totals so far:
 +1: 3
 +0: 0
 -0: 2
 -1: 4
 Sorry to anyone who's vote is missing.
 
 On 2017-03-08 05:20, Matt Sicker wrote:
> I may be missing some mailing lists considering I just subscribed to half 
> of them less than five minutes ago.
> 
> This is a vote to merge the various Apache Logging Services mailing 
> lists. The proposal is to combine them as follows:
> 
> log4j-dev@, log4php-dev@, log4net-dev@, log4cxx-dev@ -> 
> d...@logging.apache.org 
> log4j-user@, log4php-user@, log4net-user@, log4cxx-user@, general@ -> 
> u...@logging.apache.org 
> 
> commits@ and private@ remain the same as before.
> 
> The proposal would also suggest that the old emails become aliases for

Re: [Discuss][VOTE] Combine the project user and dev mailing lists into user@ and dev@

[Dominik Psenner]

We had once the discussion that we wanted all Apache Logging projects to 
become very similar in their usage, starting with the same or a very 
similar configuration. Given that we should aim towards one Apache 
Logging specification and several Apache Logging specification 
implementations in the form of Apache Logging subprojects. That means 
all the devs for all subprojects have to talk more. To me this is a good 
reasons to merge the dev mailing lists. Further I don't see why the same 
use case should not apply to the user mailing lists, too. Those mailing 
lists see very low traffic but all of them need a larger audience. Just 
quoting the last few messages of two user mailing lists I follow:


log4j-user: the last topic came in a week ago, the topic before that 
about two weeks ago
log4net-user: the last topic came in 24 hours ago and the topic before 
that a month ago


Cheers

On 2017-03-09 19:24, Ralph Goers wrote:
We use general as mainly an announcement list for topics that might be 
of general interest to all logging projects. Generally, these are just 
release announcements.


Ralph

On Mar 9, 2017, at 10:37 AM, Matt Sicker > wrote:


Yeah, I agree that the user lists can remain separate as it doesn't 
cause any issues currently. The main idea here is whether we should 
merge the dev lists into one, or if we need a common dev list for all 
devs to subscribe to (general@ doesn't sound appropriate, but I don't 
know what that list is for).


On 9 March 2017 at 10:26, Ralph Goers > wrote:


You should note that while we consider all votes only PMC votes
are “binding”. I don’t think that changes much however.

From a PMC perspective I have to say that keeping the user’s
lists separate isn’t likely to be an issue as most of the things
that would need to be discussed would be on a dev list anyway.

Ralph


On Mar 9, 2017, at 2:45 AM, Dominik Psenner mailto:dpsen...@gmail.com>> wrote:

The votes are way too scattered over the different mailing lists
so that I didn't even find my own vote. ;-) Therefore I'm trying
to summarize the current state of the vote:

log4j-dev@, log4php-dev@, log4net-dev@, log4cxx-dev@ ->d...@logging.apache.org 


Matt Sicker: +1
Ralph Goers: +1
Stefan Bodewig: +1
Sven Rautenverg: -1
Thorsten Schöning: -0
Ivan Habunek: -0
Dominik Psenner: +1
Remko Popma: +1
Mikael Ståldal: +0

Totals so far:
+1: 5
+0: 1
-0: 2
-1: 1

log4j-user@, log4php-user@, log4net-user@, log4cxx-user@, general@ 
->u...@logging.apache.org 

Matt Sicker: -1
Ralph Goers: +1
Stefan Bodewig: -1
Sven Rautenverg: -1
Thorsten Schöning: -0
Ivan Habunek: -0
Dominik Psenner: +1
Remko Popma: +1
Mikael Ståldal: -1

Totals so far:
+1: 3
+0: 0
-0: 2
-1: 4
Sorry to anyone who's vote is missing.

On 2017-03-08 05:20, Matt Sicker wrote:

I may be missing some mailing lists considering I just
subscribed to half of them less than five minutes ago.

This is a vote to merge the various Apache Logging Services
mailing lists. The proposal is to combine them as follows:

log4j-dev@, log4php-dev@, log4net-dev@, log4cxx-dev@ ->
d...@logging.apache.org 
log4j-user@, log4php-user@, log4net-user@, log4cxx-user@,
general@ -> u...@logging.apache.org


commits@ and private@ remain the same as before.

The proposal would also suggest that the old emails become
aliases for the combined email names so as not to lose any
future emails. To distinguish between projects, a subject tag
can be added such as:

[java]
[net]
[cxx]
[php]

Though I wouldn't think such a tag is required, though it
should help in gaining the attention of the appropriate audience.

Voting:

+1: Yes, combine the mailing lists!
+0: Go ahead, don't care that much.
-0: Don't like it, but not vetoing it.
-1: No, don't do that! I have a better idea!

This vote follows the same "lazy consensus" (at least 3 +1
binding, no -1/vetoes) we use for general releases and whatnot.
The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.

-- 
Matt Sicker mailto:boa...@gmail.com>>







--
Matt Sicker mailto:boa...@gmail.com>>

Re: [Discuss][VOTE] Combine the project user and dev mailing lists into user@ and dev@

[Thorsten Schöning]

Guten Tag Ralph Goers,
am Donnerstag, 9. März 2017 um 19:24 schrieben Sie:

> We use general as mainly an announcement list for topics that might
> be of general interest to all logging projects. Generally, these are just 
> release announcements.

And "general-dev@" is not an option because one can't "force" devs to
subscribe there? While there are more likely subscribed to "dev@"
because of their own interest in their project. Tricky, but would be
my favorite.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Thorsten Schöning

-- 
Thorsten Schöning   E-Mail: thorsten.schoen...@am-soft.de
AM-SoFT IT-Systeme  http://www.AM-SoFT.de/

Telefon...05151-  9468- 55
Fax...05151-  9468- 88
Mobil..0178-8 9468- 04

AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln
AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow

Re: [Discuss][VOTE] Combine the project user and dev mailing lists into user@ and dev@

[Ralph Goers]

We use general as mainly an announcement list for topics that might be of 
general interest to all logging projects. Generally, these are just release 
announcements.

Ralph

> On Mar 9, 2017, at 10:37 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> Yeah, I agree that the user lists can remain separate as it doesn't cause any 
> issues currently. The main idea here is whether we should merge the dev lists 
> into one, or if we need a common dev list for all devs to subscribe to 
> (general@ doesn't sound appropriate, but I don't know what that list is for).
> 
> On 9 March 2017 at 10:26, Ralph Goers  > wrote:
> You should note that while we consider all votes only PMC votes are 
> “binding”. I don’t think that changes much however.
> 
> From a PMC perspective I have to say that keeping the user’s lists separate 
> isn’t likely to be an issue as most of the things that would need to be 
> discussed would be on a dev list anyway.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 2:45 AM, Dominik Psenner > > wrote:
>> 
>> The votes are way too scattered over the different mailing lists so that I 
>> didn't even find my own vote. ;-) Therefore I'm trying to summarize the 
>> current state of the vote:
>> 
>> log4j-dev@, log4php-dev@, log4net-dev@, log4cxx-dev@ -> 
>> d...@logging.apache.org 
>> Matt Sicker: +1
>> Ralph Goers: +1
>> Stefan Bodewig: +1
>> Sven Rautenverg: -1
>> Thorsten Schöning: -0
>> Ivan Habunek: -0
>> Dominik Psenner: +1
>> Remko Popma: +1
>> Mikael Ståldal: +0
>> 
>> Totals so far:
>> +1: 5
>> +0: 1
>> -0: 2
>> -1: 1
>> 
>> log4j-user@, log4php-user@, log4net-user@, log4cxx-user@, general@ -> 
>> u...@logging.apache.org 
>> 
>> Matt Sicker: -1
>> Ralph Goers: +1
>> Stefan Bodewig: -1
>> Sven Rautenverg: -1
>> Thorsten Schöning: -0
>> Ivan Habunek: -0
>> Dominik Psenner: +1
>> Remko Popma: +1
>> Mikael Ståldal: -1
>> 
>> Totals so far:
>> +1: 3
>> +0: 0
>> -0: 2
>> -1: 4
>> Sorry to anyone who's vote is missing.
>> 
>> On 2017-03-08 05:20, Matt Sicker wrote:
>>> I may be missing some mailing lists considering I just subscribed to half 
>>> of them less than five minutes ago.
>>> 
>>> This is a vote to merge the various Apache Logging Services mailing lists. 
>>> The proposal is to combine them as follows:
>>> 
>>> log4j-dev@, log4php-dev@, log4net-dev@, log4cxx-dev@ -> 
>>> d...@logging.apache.org 
>>> log4j-user@, log4php-user@, log4net-user@, log4cxx-user@, general@ -> 
>>> u...@logging.apache.org 
>>> 
>>> commits@ and private@ remain the same as before.
>>> 
>>> The proposal would also suggest that the old emails become aliases for the 
>>> combined email names so as not to lose any future emails. To distinguish 
>>> between projects, a subject tag can be added such as:
>>> 
>>> [java]
>>> [net]
>>> [cxx]
>>> [php]
>>> 
>>> Though I wouldn't think such a tag is required, though it should help in 
>>> gaining the attention of the appropriate audience.
>>> 
>>> Voting:
>>> 
>>> +1: Yes, combine the mailing lists!
>>> +0: Go ahead, don't care that much.
>>> -0: Don't like it, but not vetoing it.
>>> -1: No, don't do that! I have a better idea!
>>> 
>>> This vote follows the same "lazy consensus" (at least 3 +1 binding, no 
>>> -1/vetoes) we use for general releases and whatnot. The vote will be open 
>>> for at least 72 hours.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Matt Sicker mailto:boa...@gmail.com>>
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Matt Sicker mailto:boa...@gmail.com>>

Re: [Discuss][VOTE] Combine the project user and dev mailing lists into user@ and dev@

[Matt Sicker]

Yeah, I agree that the user lists can remain separate as it doesn't cause
any issues currently. The main idea here is whether we should merge the dev
lists into one, or if we need a common dev list for all devs to subscribe
to (general@ doesn't sound appropriate, but I don't know what that list is
for).

On 9 March 2017 at 10:26, Ralph Goers  wrote:

> You should note that while we consider all votes only PMC votes are
> “binding”. I don’t think that changes much however.
>
> From a PMC perspective I have to say that keeping the user’s lists
> separate isn’t likely to be an issue as most of the things that would need
> to be discussed would be on a dev list anyway.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Mar 9, 2017, at 2:45 AM, Dominik Psenner  wrote:
>
> The votes are way too scattered over the different mailing lists so that I
> didn't even find my own vote. ;-) Therefore I'm trying to summarize the
> current state of the vote:
>
> log4j-dev@, log4php-dev@, log4net-dev@, log4cxx-dev@ -> 
> d...@logging.apache.org
>
> Matt Sicker: +1
> Ralph Goers: +1
> Stefan Bodewig: +1
> Sven Rautenverg: -1
> Thorsten Schöning: -0
> Ivan Habunek: -0
> Dominik Psenner: +1
> Remko Popma: +1
> Mikael Ståldal: +0
>
> Totals so far:
> +1: 5
> +0: 1
> -0: 2
> -1: 1
>
> log4j-user@, log4php-user@, log4net-user@, log4cxx-user@, general@ -> 
> u...@logging.apache.org
>
> Matt Sicker: -1
> Ralph Goers: +1
> Stefan Bodewig: -1
> Sven Rautenverg: -1
> Thorsten Schöning: -0
> Ivan Habunek: -0
> Dominik Psenner: +1
> Remko Popma: +1
> Mikael Ståldal: -1
>
> Totals so far:
> +1: 3
> +0: 0
> -0: 2
> -1: 4
>
> Sorry to anyone who's vote is missing.
>
> On 2017-03-08 05:20, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
> I may be missing some mailing lists considering I just subscribed to half
> of them less than five minutes ago.
>
> This is a vote to merge the various Apache Logging Services mailing lists.
> The proposal is to combine them as follows:
>
> log4j-dev@, log4php-dev@, log4net-dev@, log4cxx-dev@ ->
> d...@logging.apache.org
> log4j-user@, log4php-user@, log4net-user@, log4cxx-user@, general@ ->
> u...@logging.apache.org
>
> commits@ and private@ remain the same as before.
>
> The proposal would also suggest that the old emails become aliases for the
> combined email names so as not to lose any future emails. To distinguish
> between projects, a subject tag can be added such as:
>
> [java]
> [net]
> [cxx]
> [php]
>
> Though I wouldn't think such a tag is required, though it should help in
> gaining the attention of the appropriate audience.
>
> Voting:
>
> +1: Yes, combine the mailing lists!
> +0: Go ahead, don't care that much.
> -0: Don't like it, but not vetoing it.
> -1: No, don't do that! I have a better idea!
>
> This vote follows the same "lazy consensus" (at least 3 +1 binding, no
> -1/vetoes) we use for general releases and whatnot. The vote will be open
> for at least 72 hours.
>
> --
> Matt Sicker 
>
>
>
>


-- 
Matt Sicker 

[Discuss][VOTE] Combine the project user and dev mailing lists into user@ and dev@

[Ralph Goers]

You should note that while we consider all votes only PMC votes are “binding”. 
I don’t think that changes much however.

From a PMC perspective I have to say that keeping the user’s lists separate 
isn’t likely to be an issue as most of the things that would need to be 
discussed would be on a dev list anyway.

Ralph

> On Mar 9, 2017, at 2:45 AM, Dominik Psenner  wrote:
> 
> The votes are way too scattered over the different mailing lists so that I 
> didn't even find my own vote. ;-) Therefore I'm trying to summarize the 
> current state of the vote:
> 
> log4j-dev@, log4php-dev@, log4net-dev@, log4cxx-dev@ -> 
> d...@logging.apache.org 
> Matt Sicker: +1
> Ralph Goers: +1
> Stefan Bodewig: +1
> Sven Rautenverg: -1
> Thorsten Schöning: -0
> Ivan Habunek: -0
> Dominik Psenner: +1
> Remko Popma: +1
> Mikael Ståldal: +0
> 
> Totals so far:
> +1: 5
> +0: 1
> -0: 2
> -1: 1
> 
> log4j-user@, log4php-user@, log4net-user@, log4cxx-user@, general@ -> 
> u...@logging.apache.org 
> 
> Matt Sicker: -1
> Ralph Goers: +1
> Stefan Bodewig: -1
> Sven Rautenverg: -1
> Thorsten Schöning: -0
> Ivan Habunek: -0
> Dominik Psenner: +1
> Remko Popma: +1
> Mikael Ståldal: -1
> 
> Totals so far:
> +1: 3
> +0: 0
> -0: 2
> -1: 4
> Sorry to anyone who's vote is missing.
> 
> On 2017-03-08 05:20, Matt Sicker wrote:
>> I may be missing some mailing lists considering I just subscribed to half of 
>> them less than five minutes ago.
>> 
>> This is a vote to merge the various Apache Logging Services mailing lists. 
>> The proposal is to combine them as follows:
>> 
>> log4j-dev@, log4php-dev@, log4net-dev@, log4cxx-dev@ -> 
>> d...@logging.apache.org 
>> log4j-user@, log4php-user@, log4net-user@, log4cxx-user@, general@ -> 
>> u...@logging.apache.org 
>> 
>> commits@ and private@ remain the same as before.
>> 
>> The proposal would also suggest that the old emails become aliases for the 
>> combined email names so as not to lose any future emails. To distinguish 
>> between projects, a subject tag can be added such as:
>> 
>> [java]
>> [net]
>> [cxx]
>> [php]
>> 
>> Though I wouldn't think such a tag is required, though it should help in 
>> gaining the attention of the appropriate audience.
>> 
>> Voting:
>> 
>> +1: Yes, combine the mailing lists!
>> +0: Go ahead, don't care that much.
>> -0: Don't like it, but not vetoing it.
>> -1: No, don't do that! I have a better idea!
>> 
>> This vote follows the same "lazy consensus" (at least 3 +1 binding, no 
>> -1/vetoes) we use for general releases and whatnot. The vote will be open 
>> for at least 72 hours.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Matt Sicker mailto:boa...@gmail.com>>
>