subbing lists to each other

[Karsten 'quaid' Wade]

On 08/24/2012 09:16 AM, Dave Neary wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 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

> 
> 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?
> 
> 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 at ovirt.org
>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
>>
> 


-- 
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/infra/attachments/20120824/09743931/attachment.sig>