-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Anyone know what might happen if we subscribe the project mailing lists to arch@? I know the "try to avoid duplicates" is set in Mailman. Will that cover? For example, when I send an email to two lists.ovirt.org mailing lists I'm on, I get two copies. But I haven't tried having a mailing list subscribed to another to see how it would work. The deal is, we must have one generic all-project mailing list. When we see there are more people subscribed to engine-devel@ than arch@, what should we think & do? Leave them alone in their corner? Part of the deal of being a project in oVirt is that your project must integrate with the whole: http://www.ovirt.org/governance/adding-a-subproject/ "Each project must agree to support the oVirt complete stack (CS) release schedule" "Each project must agree to provide or integrate with one of the published API’s" How can we be integrated if we don't have all project people on one central mailing list? On the other hand, everyone on engine-devel@ doesn't have to know about the cross-project materials relevant to arch@ if they don't want to - I respect that right. But that requires other people on engine-devel@ to pass along *all* key information. Is that fair? Until then, the only way to know we have hit all relevant people is to send multiple-addressed emails, which creates duplicates. Maybe subbing lists would fix that, but it means people would be in the arch@ content flow without necessarily wanting it. The project requirement to integrate to the whole isn't a personal requirement, after all. Thoughts? - - 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/ iD8DBQFQKrQj2ZIOBq0ODEERAvt1AKDZbu2m0n5LEWYrLqEBF/axkBSS9gCdHhv3 cG3mMaPYiqzfzMadZx50hHo= =vFui -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi Karsten, On 08/14/2012 10:25 PM, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
Anyone know what might happen if we subscribe the project mailing lists to arch@?
It'll work, but in general it's not a good idea. And if you have Reply-to mangling enabled it breaks.
I know the "try to avoid duplicates" is set in Mailman. Will that cover?
Nope - that will only cover situations where you are emailing a list of which you are a member, I believe.
The deal is, we must have one generic all-project mailing list. When we see there are more people subscribed to engine-devel@ than arch@, what should we think & do? Leave them alone in their corner?
My best advice is that you should have the general/central mailing list be so useful & high quality that everyone who needs to be there *wants* to be there. I think the cross-posting, and the mailing lists with big cross-sections (I can't be the only person signed up to infra, users, arch, board and announce) makes it hard to figure out which list is appropriate for a message. The website discussions, for example, are particularly troublesome, because they touch our users, but there is a need to include board, and we really want the feedback of the core developers, and changes to the website affect the infra team. The best suggestion I have, in that case, is to consult Users about where the website is lacking, make a proposal & have a discussion based on that on arch, take the results of that to board for approval/comment, and then talk to infra about the practicalities of making the changes. But including all 4 groups in all the discussion just makes it harder to follow and less useful for everyone.
How can we be integrated if we don't have all project people on one central mailing list?
We don't need all of the project people, just the "important" ones.
On the other hand, everyone on engine-devel@ doesn't have to know about the cross-project materials relevant to arch@ if they don't want to - I respect that right. But that requires other people on engine-devel@ to pass along *all* key information. Is that fair?
I think that there will be some collateral damage during a transition period, if we decide to discourage cross-posting and try to formalise the goals of each list, and what's on-topic there. At some point, someone on engine-devel will be unhappy that something was discussed and decided on arch, and they didn't hear about it. The ironic solution to that problem is to tighten the scope of all the lists, and cross-post the new proposed scope to them all :-) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary Community Action and Impact Open Source and Standards Team, Red Hat Phone: +33 9 50 71 55 62
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig81FE5D17A6611A6A3CED725D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 08/20/2012 12:19 PM, Dave Neary wrote:
The ironic solution to that problem is to tighten the scope of all the lists, and cross-post the new proposed scope to them all :-)
I'm happy with that. Once that proposed scope is agreed upon, then I guess people can suggest topics be moved to appropriate locations, which could help with some of the topics on engine-devel that could/should be on arch. - Karsten, not necessarily taking on the task of writing the list scopes = =2E.. --=20 Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Analyst - Community Growth http://TheOpenSourceWay.org .^\ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41 --------------enig81FE5D17A6611A6A3CED725D Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iD8DBQFQNPoP2ZIOBq0ODEERAqs9AKCvSoWWVdShpuicuSbvHJEichDOlACgnc2h zG5Pmk0LZ44SkCTFDmtQy50= =eEs5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig81FE5D17A6611A6A3CED725D--
Hi, OK - suggestions, then: users@ - User issues - help, troubleshooting, configuration issues, sharing experiences, etc. Users@will have mostly technical users of oVirt or people in the process of installing it, plus some of the oVirt developers (but we'd like to encourage our more technical users to answer questions). The list could also serve as a gateway drug to contribution, and we should ask here for help for initiatives which do not require intimate knowledge of the code base - VDSM hooks, wiki editing, documentation drives, etc. arch@ - rename to developers@ - This will be the key developer mailing list for oVirt, the place where we discuss project-wide changes, the roadmap for future versions, release planning, where people can perhaps propose patches for discussion, and where any issue affecting the developer governance of the project will be discussed. board@ - Issues related to the non-technical governance of the project (ie things which require board approval). In the case of the website redesign, for example, a final design, discussed beforehand on developers@, would be submitted to board@ for approval. infra@ - issues related to the management of oVirt infrastructure - web services, developer infrastructure, etc. vdsm-devel, node-devel, engine-devel, *-devel: Low-traffic lists related to the specific implementation issues of the individual components. In this schema, if you want to talk to the developers, you email developers@ - if you have a suggestion specific to vdsm, you might contact developers@ or vdsm-devel@ - but not both. Any mailing list thread to vdsm-devel@ which requires feedback from the maintainers of other projects should move to developers@ once that's ascertained. How does that sound? Cheers, Dave. On 08/22/2012 05:26 PM, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
On 08/20/2012 12:19 PM, Dave Neary wrote:
The ironic solution to that problem is to tighten the scope of all the lists, and cross-post the new proposed scope to them all :-)
I'm happy with that. Once that proposed scope is agreed upon, then I guess people can suggest topics be moved to appropriate locations, which could help with some of the topics on engine-devel that could/should be on arch.
- Karsten, not necessarily taking on the task of writing the list scopes ...
_______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
-- Dave Neary Community Action and Impact Open Source and Standards, Red Hat Ph: +33 9 50 71 55 62 / Cell: +33 6 77 01 92 13
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigE7308B019C3C10AEA9279C44 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 08/24/2012 09:16 AM, Dave Neary wrote:
Hi, =20 OK - suggestions, then:
According to your suggestions :) you should be posting this to just arch@ then? I think we need to move this discussion there as it fits the scope of an overall change that affects lots of things, not just an infrastructure issue. Does that make sense? - Karsten
=20 users@ - User issues - help, troubleshooting, configuration issues, sharing experiences, etc. Users@will have mostly technical users of oVirt or people in the process of installing it, plus some of the oVirt=
developers (but we'd like to encourage our more technical users to answer questions). The list could also serve as a gateway drug to contribution, and we should ask here for help for initiatives which do not require intimate knowledge of the code base - VDSM hooks, wiki editing, documentation drives, etc. =20 arch@ - rename to developers@ - This will be the key developer mailing list for oVirt, the place where we discuss project-wide changes, the roadmap for future versions, release planning, where people can perhaps=
propose patches for discussion, and where any issue affecting the developer governance of the project will be discussed. =20 board@ - Issues related to the non-technical governance of the project (ie things which require board approval). In the case of the website redesign, for example, a final design, discussed beforehand on developers@, would be submitted to board@ for approval. =20 infra@ - issues related to the management of oVirt infrastructure - web=
services, developer infrastructure, etc. =20 vdsm-devel, node-devel, engine-devel, *-devel: Low-traffic lists relate= d to the specific implementation issues of the individual components. =20 In this schema, if you want to talk to the developers, you email developers@ - if you have a suggestion specific to vdsm, you might contact developers@ or vdsm-devel@ - but not both. Any mailing list thread to vdsm-devel@ which requires feedback from the maintainers of other projects should move to developers@ once that's ascertained. =20 How does that sound? =20 Cheers, Dave. =20 On 08/22/2012 05:26 PM, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
On 08/20/2012 12:19 PM, Dave Neary wrote:
The ironic solution to that problem is to tighten the scope of all the lists, and cross-post=
the new proposed scope to them all :-)
I'm happy with that. Once that proposed scope is agreed upon, then I guess people can suggest topics be moved to appropriate locations, whi= ch could help with some of the topics on engine-devel that could/should b= e on arch.
- Karsten, not necessarily taking on the task of writing the list scopes ...
_______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
=20
--=20 Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Analyst - Community Growth http://TheOpenSourceWay.org .^\ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41 --------------enigE7308B019C3C10AEA9279C44 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iD8DBQFQN6q52ZIOBq0ODEERAvTVAJ9rdvCm3lzzGXBmHhmimmRybVbieACeKbJc 7nUIeqUGpYM1KYNYwIDYp1g= =IXLs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigE7308B019C3C10AEA9279C44--
Hi, On 08/24/2012 06:24 PM, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
I think we need to move this discussion there as it fits the scope of an overall change that affects lots of things, not just an infrastructure issue. Does that make sense?
Yes. Done :) Dave. -- Dave Neary Community Action and Impact Open Source and Standards, Red Hat Ph: +33 9 50 71 55 62 / Cell: +33 6 77 01 92 13
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigB9E53EE99BB5183C5E738D21 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 08/24/2012 09:29 AM, Dave Neary wrote:
Hi, =20 On 08/24/2012 06:24 PM, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
I think we need to move this discussion there as it fits the scope of = an overall change that affects lots of things, not just an infrastructure=
issue. Does that make sense? =20 Yes. Done :)
You rock, thanks. - Karsten --=20 Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Analyst - Community Growth http://TheOpenSourceWay.org .^\ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41 --------------enigB9E53EE99BB5183C5E738D21 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iD8DBQFQN6wy2ZIOBq0ODEERAh8UAJsGqJ35fCoImNv6k8/eYgBfvRy0ZACeNhuU D9yCTKk3VWlMmMjselqWvr4= =7YGa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigB9E53EE99BB5183C5E738D21--
participants (2)
-
Dave Neary -
Karsten 'quaid' Wade