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@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 > [email protected] > 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
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Arch mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
