I'm reading this discussion from the beginning (thanks to ML). I can be mistaken but there are two issues:
1. A community communication channel. A place where users can interact, discuss and seek help. This should be a place for users and the community should use whatever serves best. 2. Decision making channel. In this case we seek for an ability to archive and search (dev@ mailing list) but we also seek engagement from wider community (not offered by dev@ list). In case of 1 we have poor chance to unify things (for example Slack vs WeChat). In case of 2 we can take advantage of the fact that every project now is on Github. For example what Apache Superset is doing looks impressive: https://github.com/apache/superset/projects/7 They still do the voting on mailing list https://lists.apache.org/thread/t2yc69rm60o7mlrp114r9rmdm96k7cwg but we may consider using some bots for handling this integration (possibly in both directions). Issues and discussions can be deleted. In this case we can consider using pull requests that support the same (or at least similar) threading functionality as issues/discussions. We have nice tool for tracking changes, reviewing and suggesting. This is more similar to what Kubernetes is doing for theirs "enchantment proposals": https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/pull/1353. This is just idea but Github is common to every project. It's something we all have, so why not start there? In fact maybe we can take some lessons from "newer" communities like CNCF projects that are no longer ML centric? Bests, Tomek On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 20:20, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > > > > > Will someone be granted commit access, and become PMC > > member without providing an email address? > > > > Why not if the mailing list is not mandatory? But I think it's not a matter > of > "having" a mailing address. It's more about subscribing and actively > discussing > using the devlist. Those two are completely different and not > really related IMHO. > > > > Not everyone interested in the development of FLOSS is willing > > (or having the time) to become a community manager in every > > new channel that pops up. > > > > But there is no such need. It's enough that (when the community agrees on > a channel) - all people from that community will know and use it. And they > are > already on this channel (see below). > > Should we have to jump through (other) no less arbitrary hoops > > instead? > > > > By all means yes. If the community decides, some people in the community > will have to jump through some hoops (possibly). But more often than not > those will be either very small hoops (the UI, ease of use for many of the > solutions, lack of friction had greatly improved over the last 20 years) > or everyone has done it already. > > In the case of Airflow (if we talk about switching to Github Discussions) > what we are talking about is ~ 1900 people having to subscribe to the > devlist and learn to use it vs. exactly 0 (!) people having to subscribe to > the > GH issues/discussions and learning to use it (we all already do it daily > anyway - it is just not "blessed" as the "official channel"). > > Looks like no brainer. > > > > Regards, > > Gilles > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org > > > > >
