[Engine-devel] Getting rid of arch at ovirt.org?

[Jason Brooks]

On 07/15/2012 12:37 PM, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
> -----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've been understanding @arch as sort of a catch all list for many 
project types that aren't -devel or -user -- infra and marketing issues, 
for instance, but maybe this misses the initial intention of @arch.

I don't know if more cross-posting is the answer -- I'm subbed to all 
the ovirt lists and I'm seeing a ton of duplication, which I'm finding 
annoying. Just this morning, in fact, I was looking into deduping addons 
for thunderbird.


>
> 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
> -----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-----
> _______________________________________________
> Engine-devel mailing list
> Engine-devel at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
>


-- 
Jason Brooks
Media & Communications
Open Source and Standards @ Red Hat

identi.ca/jasonbrooks
twitter.com/jasonbrooks