> I would say that it is on us to redirect traffic to the correct place if we want to effect a change. +1 to this.
I think the clean way to accomplish this is to say: "Let's continue this conversation on user@", add user@ and move dev@ to bcc (to avoid the fork), then (hopefully), answer the thread on user@ in the next message. On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 3:04 PM Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> wrote: > I am in the same boat: I'm subscribed to both but the dev@ ones are more > visible to me. That being said, I do think it's valuable to have segregated > discussion (otherwise why have two lists), and "lurkers" on users@ can > learn from questions answered there. > > I would say that it is on us to redirect traffic to the correct place if > we want to effect a change. Forking the conversation is a problem, but > enough people have answered this thread (and likely many more have read it) > that if we consciously set a convention we should be able to follow it. > This could be as simple as responding to such queries as "I am forwarding > your email to users@ [and will answer it there]" and not responding to > threads that have been resolved as such. > > +1 to Kenn's idea about explicitly calling out dev@ as the forum for > those interested in contributing to beam. (This can be community/design > contributions of course.) > > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 2:21 PM Pablo Estrada <[email protected]> wrote: > >> My impression is that Boyuan is right: People may email dev@ because >> they may feel they're more likely to get a response. I'll confess that I am >> subscribed to both, but pay more attention to dev : / >> >> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 2:16 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Note on the data: dev@ is much higher volume than user@ right now >>> (maybe 2x?). [1] [2] >>> >>> I think https://beam.apache.org/community/contact-us/ has an OK >>> description. I guess we could make it more clear about "Developer and >>> contributor discussions" / "Developer mailing list" to mean that it is >>> about developing Beam itself. But personally, I think it is OK to be >>> ambiguous. For Beam, any user request might be a PTransform we want to add, >>> after all, etc. Of course, my opinion should not be taken too seriously, >>> since I am subscribed to both so they both hit my inbox. >>> >>> Another practice I have: When something on user@ makes me think of a >>> feature request or a complex issue, I send the thread also to dev@. I >>> think it is OK for users to also make this decision for themselves, at >>> least for now. Maybe we should have this deal: feel free to send your >>> issues to dev@ if you are willing to become a Beam contributor to >>> improve it aka "mail dev@ if you are interested in developing Beam" :-) >>> >>> Kenn >>> >>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/[email protected] >>> [2] https://lists.apache.org/[email protected] >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 2:04 PM Alexey Romanenko < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 10 Mar 2021, at 22:13, Onur Ozer <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> One of the sample mails belongs to me, sorry for that. I thought the >>>> dev list was a better place. Will ask similar to the other list as well. >>>> >>>> >>>> Onur, >>>> Well, I just picked up a random example of one of the latest emails, >>>> that, I believe, should be addressed to user@. >>>> So no worries on this =) and thank you for a good question! >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 12:13 PM Steve Niemitz <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> As a frequent emailer of dev@, I'll admit that it's often very >>>>> difficult to figure out if I should be emailing user@ or dev@, and >>>>> typically just chose dev@ because it seems more likely to get an >>>>> answer there. Having clearer guidelines around what is a "dev" topic >>>>> would >>>>> be very useful to better guide people towards the correct list. >>>>> >>>>> An example here was my recent email about schemas. [1] Should this >>>>> have gone to users@? I count myself as a "developer" so I feel like >>>>> it fits into "developer and contributor discussions", but I can certainly >>>>> also see how it would fit into "general discussions" for users@ as >>>>> well. >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r881ab4d0ccbc7dc2e8c478f9b68b18b313f3740b419fdf7e91a17a83%40%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E >>>>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r881ab4d0ccbc7dc2e8c478f9b68b18b313f3740b419fdf7e91a17a83@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Steve, >>>> I think your question is somewhere between these 2 lists =) Since, on >>>> the one hand, it’s more about some specific user’s problem, but, on the >>>> other hand, it probably requires some internal dev knowledge to answer it. >>>> Personally, I’d send it to user@, but it’s a tricky example - so any >>>> is fine, imho . >>>> >>>> I agree, that we don’t have strict borders and rules to decide where a >>>> question should go and sometimes, as an example above, it’s not so obvious, >>>> but I think we can improve the description of both lists on web site to >>>> make it more clear for new users. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 2:52 PM Ahmet Altay <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 11:16 AM Alexey Romanenko < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What do you think should be the right behaviour for managing such >>>>>>>> emails? Forward this email to user@ (and remove dev@ address from >>>>>>>> copy) and ask politely to continue a discussion there? I tried it >>>>>>>> several >>>>>>>> times but sometimes it happened that discussion was "forked” and >>>>>>>> continued >>>>>>>> in two different lists which is even worse, imho. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I like your proposal but I do share the same concern of forked >>>>>>> threads. One suggestion, instead of forking the thread we can ask users >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> ask on user@ list next time and still answer the question in the >>>>>>> original thread. Hopefully that can reinforce good habits over time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Agree with asking and not to fork, since it usually won’t help. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anything else? What do you believe should work better in such cases >>>>>>>> (maybe some experience for other projects)? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I wonder if there is a reason for people to ask on dev@ instead of >>>>>>> user@? Web site instructions look pretty clear to me. There is a >>>>>>> good amount of activity and engagement on user@ list as well. I am >>>>>>> not sure about why users pick one list over another. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe we need to make it even more clear on web page that dev@ list >>>>>>> is _only_ for dev-related questions, that are supposed to have any >>>>>>> relationship with project development in any sense (new features/ >>>>>>> infrastructure/ bugs/ testing/ documentation/ etc) and provide some >>>>>>> examples for both of the lists? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 this makes sense to me. And reading the website again "review >>>>>> proposed design ideas on dev@" might imply that you can bring your >>>>>> design ideas about your own use cases/issues to the dev list. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>
