I think we should stop asking infra to do things before they have been fully set out/agreed. If I was infra then now you have updated the JIRA my next question would be: what is this new list called? Followed by, why didnt we create it already using https://selfserve.apache.org?
Personally, I would just re-use "issues@" given PR comments do seem like issues traffic, and I think we have enough lists. If enough folks think we should use a new list though, it would be good to agree a name (which could be done via a simple lazy consensus statement), then we can create it, and then we can ask infra to update things to use it. Robbie On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:03, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: > > Lazy consensus was for the overal move. I didn't think on the list > name (I thought it was ok on just moving it there) > > I will change the JIRA to be on its own list. > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:24 AM Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Invoking Lazy Consensus normally involves giving people a clear period > > to agree/disagree with your intended action before you initiate it. > > This mail thread had obviously been around for a number of days, but > > discussing 'should we do this?' isn't quite the same thing as > > discussing 'I'm doing this tomorrow unless further discussion suggests > > otherwise'. You shouldnt have to 'assume consensus'. Some of the > > details weren't at all concrete, in particular noone really properly > > discussed the destination list: 'new list' or 'separate list' was the > > terminology you used throughout the thread and commits@ was only > > mentioned as a 'for instance' by JB once mid-thread. > > > > I'm -1 on using "commits@" personally, I dont think comments on PRs > > belong on that list. There is also an "issues@" already where the JIRA > > traffic was moved previously and between those two lists I'd say that > > makes a far better destination, if it isn't to be a completely new > > list. > > > > If folks mostly think using commits@ is great, so be it, but we should > > actually discuss that. I have posted on the JIRA to ask that Infra to > > hold off moving things while we do so. > > > > I'm -0 on the overall move as I too think the messages are fine where > > they are and are easily filterable, but I do admit the same applies in > > reverse; if we move them I'll typically just filter them back into the > > same place they were going originally. > > > > Robbie > > > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:01, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > I'm assuming consensus and I'm asking infra to move the gitbox > > > messages to the commit message. > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:44 AM Clebert Suconic > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Don’t get me wrong. I can do with filters personally. > > > > > > > > I just think this could be more friendly for new people joining in. > > > > Like Ryan yeats who just posted his opinion (as if someone just joining) > > > > > > > > What about this. We could ask Infra to move GitHub messages to a new > > > > list. > > > > > > > > I already follow GitHub messages on my email directly anyways. > > > > > > > > If people want those they can subscribe to the new list. > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:21 AM michael.andre.pearce > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> I am also +0 on this. I find email filters more than adequate, and > > > >> avoid me having to maintain several mail group subscriptions, it will > > > >> all come to one mailbox anyhow.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. > > > >> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic > > > >> <[email protected]> Date: 15/02/2019 22:39 (GMT+00:00) To: > > > >> [email protected] Subject: Re: [Discuss] automated github > > > >> messages on a separate list The thing is. I can do fine with > > > >> filtering. So in a way I’m doing thisbased on a feedback of someone > > > >> else.So I am putting myself in the shoes of someone coming on board > > > >> now. Justtrying to make it easy for new people.On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at > > > >> 6:58 AM Christopher Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:> > > > >> I am +0 on this because either way is fine with me as it's really easy > > > >> to> do mail filters on either addresses or on subject tags.>> There is > > > >> a ton of Github traffic right now obviously so to make it> manageable > > > >> I have filters and labels setup on my gmail account so that> GitHub > > > >> related messages get tagged with one label and everything else is a> > > > >> different one which solves the issue. I imagine most email providers > > > >> have> something similar.>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 3:20 AM Clebert > > > >> Suconic <[email protected]> >> wrote:>> > People are probably > > > >> missing this discussion because of that noise.> >> > On Fri, Feb 15, > > > >> 2019 at 7:47 AM Otavio Piske <[email protected]> wrote:> >> > > > > > >> Sharing my perspective as someone who also would like to contribute> > > > >> more> > > often: I think that it be good.> > >> > > I think that the > > > >> Github messages create a lot of noise in the mailbox.> It> > > > > > >> requires constant cleaning/filtering and it is easy to miss > > > >> discussions> > > about subjects that interest me and for which I would > > > >> like to help.> > >> > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:43 AM Clebert > > > >> Suconic <> > > [email protected]>> > > wrote:> > >> > > > I > > > >> work on this dev list on my daily basis. We had some members here> > > > > >> > > suggesting doing this in the past and we decided to let just > > > >> people> to> > > > filter out stuff with filters. Etc.> > > >> > > > > > > >> But this doesn’t make easy to recruit new open source devs.> > > >> > > > > >> > > I just heard from a guy who only subscribed users list because > > > >> there> is> > > too> > > > much traffic.> > > >> > > > Github is easy > > > >> enough to follow. So I propose we move GitHub> comments> > > to a> > > > > >> > > separate list.> > > >> > > >> > > > We could leave this list for > > > >> more generic and important discussions.> > > Such> > > > as the web > > > >> site. Architectural decisions. Releases. And eventually> > even> > > > > > >> > codes but without the clutter of github.> > > > --> > > > Clebert > > > >> Suconic> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > Kind regards> > >> > --> > > > > >> Clebert Suconic> >>-- Clebert Suconic > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic
