Mailing list scope proposal

[Karsten 'quaid' Wade]

On 08/26/2012 12:07 AM, Livnat Peer wrote:
> On 24/08/12 19:29, Dave Neary wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Over on infra@, we were having a discussion about whether it was best
>> policy to subscribe lists to each other to help reduce the amount of
>> cross-posting going on in the project (I for one find it a bit annoying
>> to get 4 copies of a single email).
>>
>> The answer to the technical question is that it's not, there are lots of
>> good reasons to avoid subscribing lists to another mailing list, but
>> that led to a discussion about whether we could tighten the scope of
>> each of the lists, and reduce cross-posting that way, by making it
>> clearer where people should be subscribed/where a topic is on- and
>> off-topic.
>>
>> So - here's my suggestion for that (and as per my suggestion, let's have
>> this discussion here, and when we reach a consensus ask for the opinion
>> of the board):
>>
>> users@ - User issues - help, troubleshooting, configuration issues,
>> sharing experiences, etc. Users at 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? Does anyone have other/better suggestions?
>>
> 
> +1, I think this is a good proposal.
> I would try to avoid discussing patches on the developers list and try
> to keep it more high level like design discussions etc.

+1 Yes, that makes sense - keep patch discussions in the project, and
keep discussions that affect oVirt overall on the developers list.

Also, I'm +1 to renaming this list; I reckon arch@ is confusing, dev@ or
developers@ is a more common Big Main List name.

- Karsten

> Livnat
> 
> 
> 
>> Cheers,
>> Dave.
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Arch mailing list
> Arch at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
> 


-- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Analyst - Community Growth
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org  .^\  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v'  gpg: AD0E0C41

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/arch/attachments/20120827/3ccddc50/attachment.sig>