Hi Karsten, On 08/14/2012 10:25 PM, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: It'll work, but in general it's not a good idea. And if you have Reply-to mangling enabled it breaks. Nope - that will only cover situations where you are emailing a list of which you are a member, I believe. 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. We don't need all of the project people, just the "important" ones. 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

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: -- 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

Hi, On 08/24/2012 06:24 PM, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: 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