Not true at this point. The spamassasssin rules blocking Japanese- encoded subjects were removed about a month or so ago.
----- Original Message ----- > From: Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> > To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org> > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 12:01 AM > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Setup of ooo-users-it and ooo-project-it mailing lists > >T here is a problem with Japanese, apache MLs and spamassassin. I hope that > won't be an issue with Italian. > > Regards, > Dave > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Dec 13, 2011, at 8:48 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > >> 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. >>> >
