----- Original Message ----- > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 07/15/2012 01:53 AM, Ayal Baron wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Sorry for cross-posting, but in this case I think it's relevant. > > > > The original idea was that every time we wish to discuss a new > > cross-component feature we should do it over arch list. However, it > > would appear that de-facto usually engine-devel and vdsm-devel are > > being used (cross posted). Currently engine-devel has 211 > > subscribers, arch has 160 and vdsm-devel has 128 so from this > > perspective again, arch seems less relevant. I propose we ditch > > arch and keep the other 2 mailing lists. I'm not sure whether new > > cross-component features should be discussed solely on engine-devel > > or cross-posted (there are probably people who wouldn't care about > > engine side but would still like to know about such changes). > > > > Thoughts? > > - -1 > > I don't normally read engine-devel and vdsm-devel, so I hadn't > noticed > that discussions I would expect to be on arch@ are not happening > here. > I'm probably not the only person in that situation. > > If this project were 100% about Engine and VDSM, then I could > understand your reasoning. But we've already added a few new > incubating projects, we have subsystem teams such as documentation > and > infrastructure, and we all need a single location where we know we > can > reach *all* contributors to this project. > > If we try to force all that discussion on to engine-devel, not > everyone would be interested. There is enough on engine-devel that is > not general interest that it would become noise (as it has for me, so > I filter it) or people would drop it all together. > > Perhaps what we need to do is have the discipline to cross-post *all* > general interest discussions from the project mailing list back to > arch@? Enforce the rule that decisions that affect the whole project > have to be ratified on arch@ instead of whatever project list the > discussions started on? Strongly suggest that all contributors be on > arch@ and announce@ as a minimum?
I find that anything that should go on arch would interest anyone on the devel lists (as it is about new features, design, etc) so I believe that arch should have at least everyone on engine-devel and vdsm-devel. However, right now this is not the case as is evident by number of subs to each list (e.g. I haven't compared to see if everyone on arch is on engine). So imo something needs to be done. I'm fine with keeping arch, but as you said, that means we need to enforce it to be *the* list for feature discussions and I'm not exactly sure how you'd go about doing that. > > I'm sure there are open source projects that don't have a general > interest contributor list, preferring to run all that discussion on a > technical-focused list. But I don't recommend it. It's the kind of > thing that repels contributors who don't want to sort through deep > developer discussions just to find out what is generally going on. > > - - Karsten > - -- > Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Analyst - Community Growth > http://TheOpenSourceWay.org .^\ http://community.redhat.com > @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iD8DBQFQAxvi2ZIOBq0ODEERAlaXAKDMCwHjZzS/mtWkzvYt+Px+iEhl/wCZASvN > AYHTXhHYq33yJMebr4bmijE= > =iBdY > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > vdsm-devel mailing list > firstname.lastname@example.org > https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel > _______________________________________________ vdsm-devel mailing list email@example.com https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel