Thanks, that helps me anyway. I originally joined this list because some 5+ years ago because I was told that this was how you learned about api changes, and where the contrib community (module maintainers) would get solicited for input on api change issues that would have far reaching effects. It was also where I heard the calls to action (we need help in the issue queue, people testing patches etc). It sounds like for better or for worse, we've abandoned that purpose of this list.
I can no longer find any documentation on how a responsible maintainer is supposed to stay connected. Does such a document exist? Maybe we no longer care? Do I hear you correctly saying that an RSS subscription to the iniatives group is what you'd like us to be doing? Api changes will now be announced there and not here, right? Dave On Jun 13, 2011, at 7:47 PM, webchick wrote: > On 6/13/11 1:08 PM, Daniel F. Kudwien wrote: >> >> Things one could have learned in IRC (you know, yet another communication >> medium that doesn't work): >> >> - Initiative owners are supposed to post announcements in >> http://groups.drupal.org/drupal-initiatives. You cannot subscribe to all >> posts of that group, because g.d.o technically does not allow it without >> opening the group for everyone. <sarcasm>You know, Drupal core initiatives >> are top-down decisions only, your own perspectives and ideas are not >> welcome.</sarcasm> >> >> - To remedy the subscription issue, posts of the Drupal Initiatives group >> are now syndicated on Drupal Planet. (http://drupal.org/node/1187060) >> <sarcasm>Obviously, you can't subscribe to comments this way, but who writes >> or reads comments anyway?</sarcasm> > You know, I just realized while I was tweaking the dashboard that another > reason people might be getting the mistaken impression that > http://groups.drupal.org/drupal-initiatives is intended to stifle discussion > (other than "invite-only" which, as mentioned, is required for an > announcement list) is because of the previous group description that was > there, which had some kind of weird language in it probably gave this > impression. > > I've just edited it to mostly say what I said in my previous mail, which is > certainly what the *intent* is (a curated *invitation* for community > discussion on the most important stuff). I think that old description was > made back when we were still kind of figuring out communication channels and > we didn't really know how we'd be using that group. Sorry about the > confusion, there. > > -Angie
