Issues@ seems to make the most sense to me. On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:34 AM Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> wrote:
> You didn't say that you agreed with his 'for instance' example of > commits@ though, you just subsequently said "What about this. We could > ask Infra to move GitHub messages to a new list." Its hard for people > to have agreed consensus on something they have not been told. > > If I were intending to raise a JIRA request later some week to divert > mail traffic from one list to another list, I would expect to have > already sent a mail informing people specifically which list it was > going to and roughly when I might later raise that request, giving > people the detail they need to agree or disagree and a timeline to do > it, such that I can state [lazy] consensus at that time if discussion > had not lead to alternative agreement. No need for assumption. > > Per my other mails, I like reusing issues@ personally, but am happy to > go with anything (even commits@) if it seems most folks prefer it or > it has actually got demonstrated [lazy] consensus behind it. Once that > is better established I'll happily post on the JIRA. > > Robbie > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 14:24, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Robbie. I sent this message on feb-14. JB suggested commit list and I > > agreed with him. So I assumed consensus. > > > > > > If you like another list please let me know the name and make a post on > the > > Jira so this moves on. > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:37 AM Clebert Suconic < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > If you prefer issues@. I’m fine with that. > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Clebert Suconic < > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> This is a simple task. I did not think it would be a big deal. Those > > >> gitbox messages on the list are noise. (Everyone just filters them > out). 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 updated the JiRA accordingly. I think the name is sensible enough. > > >> > > >> If you ok with everything we can move ahead. On that case update the > > >> JIRA. If not please let Me know. > > >> > > >> 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 > > > > > -- > > Clebert Suconic >
