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).

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?

-----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-----

-----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'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 _______________________________________________ vdsm-devel mailing list vdsm-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel

On 07/15/2012 03:59 PM, Ayal Baron wrote: > > ----- 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. Maybe arch needs renamed to make it clear what if is for? Maybe something simple like ovirt-devel to make it clear it is for generally ovirt development?

On 16/07/12 09:41, Itamar Heim wrote: > On 07/16/2012 01:46 AM, Robert Middleswarth wrote: >> On 07/15/2012 03:59 PM, Ayal Baron wrote: >>> >>> ----- 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. >> Maybe arch needs renamed to make it clear what if is for? >> >> Maybe something simple like ovirt-devel to make it clear it is for >> generally ovirt development? > > we can simply make it arch include the other mailing lists, so sending > to arch would be sending to all other mailing lists. What would happen if someone reply on the engine-list to a mail originally sent to arch? wouldn't we end-up starting a thread on arch and then loosing it to one of the other lists?

> wouldn't resolve the dupes, but will resolve need of everyone to > subscribe to it as well. > (for dupes i also use a mail filter to delete emails arriving from > engine-devel and cc other mailing list, etc. > _______________________________________________ > Arch mailing list > Arch(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch

On 16/07/12 10:01, Itamar Heim wrote: > On 07/16/2012 09:56 AM, Livnat Peer wrote: >> On 16/07/12 09:41, Itamar Heim wrote: >>> On 07/16/2012 01:46 AM, Robert Middleswarth wrote: >>>> On 07/15/2012 03:59 PM, Ayal Baron wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ----- 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. >>>> Maybe arch needs renamed to make it clear what if is for? >>>> >>>> Maybe something simple like ovirt-devel to make it clear it is for >>>> generally ovirt development? >>> >>> we can simply make it arch include the other mailing lists, so sending >>> to arch would be sending to all other mailing lists. >> >> What would happen if someone reply on the engine-list to a mail >> originally sent to arch? >> >> wouldn't we end-up starting a thread on arch and then loosing it to one >> of the other lists? > > reply-to is not set to reply-to-list, rather to original sender/cc list, > so shouldn't be an issue > ok so if reply to such mail de-facto I'll send a mail to the arch list - shouldn't I be register to the arch list (or I need someone to approve the mail)?

>> >> >>> wouldn't resolve the dupes, but will resolve need of everyone to >>> subscribe to it as well. >>> (for dupes i also use a mail filter to delete emails arriving from >>> engine-devel and cc other mailing list, etc. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Arch mailing list >>> Arch(a)ovirt.org >>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch >> >> > >