So it could be said there was [lazy] consensus at the time, at what reasonable point in the future might you proceed to do that? This time tomorrow?
On the actual suggestion, I still prefer issues@ as it seems like issue traffic to me, but I'd be fine with gitbox@ also. I'm only really against using commits@. Robbie On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 15:33, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: > > lets make it simple: > > I suggest we create a list called [email protected], and move > the traffic from gitbox/github discussions there. > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:19 AM Robbie Gemmell > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Comments inline > > > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 13:30, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > This is a simple task. I did not think it would be a big deal. > > > > Agreed. It is a simple task and need not be considered a big deal. I > > only take issue with the previously unsaid assumption around using > > commits@, and the seeming kneejerk acting upon it without stated > > timeline or opportunity to discuss. There is a simple fix to address > > this. > > > > If for example you had sent a mail a few days ago, containing a lazy > > consensus statement around what specifically you were planning to do > > and when (request on Wednesday that they be moved to commits@) and > > lots of folks agreed or noone disagreed, then there was every chance I > > wouldnt have sent any mail on the subject at all. > > > > As it happens, I do disagree with the use of commits@, so once I saw > > that was what you had already requested without saying that > > previously, I emailed to say so. If everyone else thinks the PR > > comments belong on commits@, then thats fair enough for me. > > > > > Those > > > gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone just filters them out). > > > > Although not really important here, for completeness, as I have said I > > wont actually filter them out. After we move them to another list, > > I'll filter these mails back to the same place they go currently > > alongside the dev@ content (and did similarly when the JIRA mails > > moved over to [email protected]). > > > > >I don’t see a point in keeping them on dev list. I can filter them out. But > > > that doesn’t make it easy on non committees looking at our list. > > > > > > > I didnt say they have to stay on dev@. I would personally leave them > > there, as it seems several others would, but to be clear I have been > > mailing today entirely on the basis that they will be moving. > > > > > I updated the JiRA accordingly. I think the name is sensible enough. > > > > > > > What you think is not necessarily a consensus though, and it is good > > to give at least the chance for other people to say what they think. > > It doesnt need to be some huge elaborate process, a simple "I will ask > > tomorrow that they redirect to <foo> if noone objects" might have > > sufficed if everyone thought <foo> was a great name or didnt actually > > care what its called. > > > > The traffic has been where it is for years, so taking some hours/days > > to openly agree on specifically where it goes doesn't seem out of the > > way. Especially if its a new list that will be around for years. > > > > > If you ok with everything we can move ahead. On that case update the JIRA. > > > If not please let Me know. > > > > I'm not ok proceeding yet as its not just my decision or just your > > decision, and I dont think a sufficient discussion has occurred or > > suitable lazy consensus opportunity been given yet. > > > > As I've said, I think issues@ is preferable to commits@ if reusing an > > existing list, and what I would personally go with. If others think > > commits@ is the way to go, thats fine. If a new list is preferred > > instead then we should agree what it is to be called, and once > > censensus (lazy or not) is reached, create it. > > > > After one of those approaches is settled on, we ask infra to proceed > > with the redirection to the target list. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:54 AM Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hah, I actually overlooked that you updated the JIRA to suggest > > > > specifically "activemq-gitbox". I'm assuming that means a suggested > > > > email address of [email protected]? > > > > > > > > Robbie > > > > > > > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > -- > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic
