On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: > I say do the pair. I see no reason not to trust your experience and > judgment. That goes the same for any other NL group active enough to want an > NL list on the podling and having active PPMC members to support them. >
We created a Japanese list a while ago, based on a similar degree of enthusiasm. It has not received a single post yet. http://pulse.apache.org/#ooo-general-ja_at_incubator.apache.org This too is part of our experience and should influence our judgment. I'd be happier creating new language lists if we knew why that other list did not work out, and had a plan for ensuring that future attempts were successful. Maybe things are simpler with a user list? I see that the legacy "utenti" list still gets a lot of traffic and has a lot of subscribers. The dev list, not so much. One way to factor this might be to permit language-specific user lists, just as we do for forums. But we encourage a single ooo-dev list for everyone, in order to avoid fragmenting the discussions and the community. Make we could make better use of subject tags to distinguish localization threads? Then, if at some point we have so much localization-related traffic, then we might create a cross-language ooo-i10n list. We could create that based on demonstrated need. That could work well, since in the initial release or two we're going to have many common questions about Pootle configuration, general Apache process, etc. If then at some point specific languages generate such a heavy amount of traffic that it is impossible to work on ooo-i10n, then and only then should we consider language-specific localization lists. I'd also note that if we bring in a bunch of new project contributors, who have not been involved at Apache before, it will be critical that they start off on the ooo-dev list, to see how we work, how we make decisions, etc. It would be disastrous to have part of the project being actively mentored and working together while other 'pockets' of contributors work in self-imposed isolation. -Rob > I think enough is known to avoid a slippery slope into mailing-list chaos. > > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@openoffice.org] > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 16:51 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Setup of ooo-users-it and ooo-project-it mailing lists > > On 13/12/2011 Shane Curcuru wrote: >> How much traffic do the existing Italian lists get? > > The ones that we would map to the "users" list got a bit more than 1000 > messages in 2011 so far; the ones that we would map to the "projects" > list got about 300, but OpenOffice.org is a mostly inactive project, so > when there is something to do for volunteers (read it as: strings to > translate for localizers and need for pre-release tests for QA > volunteers) in Apache OpenOffice we will see far more activity in the > "projects" list, so it would be good to have it from the beginning. > >> While I definitely understand the desire to have some user focus to some >> of the lists (who are probably not very tolerant of lots of technical >> discussions), and have a place to discuss project issues, I'm really >> concerned that we're simply making more and more lists, and will end up >> like OOo was with too many lists. > > Well, 12 to 2 is already a significant reduction in the number of lists. > > The main problem is that we have two large, distinct, memberships: the > overlap between the peer support ("users") lists and the volunteers > ("project") lists is limited to a few dedicated people, the others > belong to either the "users" or the "project" area and merging the > groups doesn't make a lot of sense, regardless of the traffic. It would > be, obvious differences aside, like merging the Italian and French lists > because the combined traffic is not huge. > > So I'd still prefer that we map the existing dichotomy to two different > lists, but if you or anyone else have a strong preference that we start > with one list only, we can start with a "users" list and try to replace > only a subset of the current Italian lists. > > Regards, > Andrea. >
