The idea of a mailing list for each project and working group makes me shudder and quake uncontrollably. It's an infra and end user nightmare!
There are many messages in openstack-dev and opnfv-tech-discuss with multiple projects/working groups in the subject line. With one mailing list for each project and working group, a single email affecting multiple projects would have to be sent to several mailing lists. Tracking replies becomes a nightmare - what if a user sends a reply but not to all the mailing lists? How are recipients supposed to know a reply was not made to all of the "to" lists? Some days it's hard enough keeping track of a thread on a single mailing list - please let's not add a layer of complexity by having to keep track of a single subject sent to multiple project email lists. --------- Aimee Ukasick Open Source Engagement OPNFV, OpenStack, ONAP IRC: aimeeu On 04/20/2017 02:29 PM, Gildas Lanilis wrote: > Let me share my experience with mailing list per project: > Even though developers requested for specific mailing list, they hate it. Why: > > 1. They had to register in all the mailing lists. Too cumbersome. So > most of them did not register > > 2. As they did not register in mailing list, other folks took the habit > to add them separately in To or Cc. And then the Moderator?s misery started. > > 3. The list of folks added separately to the mailing list grew quickly > and hit the max allowed by Linux Foundation (10 recipients). Thus requiring > the Moderator to review and accept the message. Impact: delay on the > responses. > > 4. As the folks were not systematically in the mailing list but still > used it (by pressing Reply All), by policy (to avoid spam) Linux Foundation > requested the Moderator to again review and accept the message. Impact: delay > on the responses. > > I start liking the Topic. It requires a bit of discipline but it makes things > working better for all who can enjoy the art of filtering. > > Thanks, > Gildas > > From: onap-discuss-bounces at lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-discuss-bounces at > lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of SULLIVAN, BRYAN L > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 11:38 AM > To: Ed Warnicke; Andrew Grimberg > Cc: onap-discuss > Subject: Re: [onap-discuss] Proposal for list split of onap-discuss > > The flip side (just to be considered in the supporting infra) is that it?s > not hard for projects to become disconnected when segregated. > Needing/managing many project email list subscriptions inhibits the ability > to easily keep an overview of how things are progressing across projects. Of > course at some point, the firehose becomes unmanageable and the demands of > focus require segregation. > > But some infra support can address the limitations of project-specific lists: > > - Mail subscription system (e.g. http://lists.onap.org) support for > a ?auto-subscribe to all? option for those who want it. > > - Mail archive system that supports an effective search, e.g. the > W3C system: https://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/ > > o Mailman is woefully inadequate for this. Some services exist that could > possibly be used for this, e.g. http://openstack.markmail.org/search/?q= > works well for me, for OpenStack in general. > > o Note that you can also just subscribe using some email service ala Gmail > or Hotmail, that provides a search feature that works for you. That can > completely solve your corporate inbox issue, given that you?re allowed to use > non-corporate email services for open source work. > > If we want to create project-specific lists, I recommend that the LF work on > the two supporting infra capabilities above, or include workarounds such as > above in developer intros/FAQs. > > Thanks, > Bryan Sullivan | AT&T > > From: onap-discuss-bounces at lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-discuss-bounces at > lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Ed Warnicke > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 10:46 AM > To: Andrew Grimberg <agrimberg at linuxfoundation.org> > Cc: onap-discuss <onap-discuss at lists.onap.org> > Subject: Re: [onap-discuss] Proposal for list split of onap-discuss > > I hit a situation just yesterday where there was literally no reasonable way > to address a sub-community of openstack because they have > a giant monster mailer, and thus there was no reasonable way to address the > interested subcommunity. > > Monster mega lists suppress conversation. Give each project their own space > for their community to talk. > > Ed > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Andrew Grimberg <agrimberg at > linuxfoundation.org<mailto:agrimberg at linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: > On 04/20/2017 09:46 AM, Ed Warnicke wrote: >> Josef, >> >> I couldn't agree more. Typically 'discuss' in most communities is for >> 'cross project' discussion. Project specific converstions tend to happen on >> ${project}-dev mailers (think dcae-dev, sdnc-dev, etc). For this to >> work, one needs projects. Projects *need* their own space to hold >> publicly visible conversations. >> >> I would strongly recommend *against* a single list in the long term. It >> becomes overwhelming, and it strongly discourages folks sending email >> because the room is so big. > > Our largest communities have major cross-posting problems along with new > people regularly informing us that they don't know where to send things > because of having too many lists. As such, I can't express how strongly > I recommend only breaking out a specific topic to a separate list _iff_ > it proves to cause too much traffic on the general list. > > As Aimee pointed out OpenStack, which is a community larger than our > largest community, doesn't do what you're talking about. They use topics > on their lists precisely to get around the mailing list explosion of a > list per project that you're suggesting. > > -Andy- > > -- > Andrew J Grimberg > Lead, IT Release Engineering > The Linux Foundation > > > > _______________________________________________ > onap-discuss mailing list > onap-discuss at lists.onap.org > https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss >
