Definitely +1 for splitting -- it becomes overwhelmed. We'll soon need regexps just to handle the incoming emails :) Having separate mailing lists would make it easier to stay focused and concentrate on needed projects.
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Flavio Percoco <fla...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 15/11/13 11:06 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > >> Wow, lots of different opinions! let's try to summarize: >> >> Arguments in favor of splitting openstack-dev / stackforge-dev >> * People can easily filter out all non-openstack discussions >> * Traffic would drop by about 25% >> * Removes confusion as to which projects are actually "in openstack" >> >> > Again, +1 for splitting! > > > Arguments in favor of keeping it the same >> * Provides a cross-pollination forum where external projects can learn >> > > This can still happen. People can still subscribe to both lists and > reply / create threads as long as they belong to that list. This > 'split' is more an 'organization' of emails than an actuall 'split' > because it's not intended to split the community but to ease the > interaction among it. > > Cheers, > FF > > > * More chaos creates more innovation >> >> Personally I was fine with having everyone in the same "burgeoning city" >> (to quote the lyrical Clint) until we recently crossed the bar of making >> that city painful for a lot of people. Especially the people who work on >> serving the needs of all OpenStack projects (think release management, >> doc, QA, infra) and who have to pay some level of attention to every >> thread. >> >> Yes, those people can filter out all stackforge discussions into a >> separate folder: identify all the corresponding prefixes and setting >> filters for them (and praying that they would all just use the right >> suffixes). But rather than forcing everyone to go through that setup, >> why not set up a list and make it more convenient for everyone to apply >> different (or similar !) reading rules to the two different groups. >> >> Because they ARE two different groups. One is "OpenStack" and must get >> the extra attention of all the people working on horizontal functions >> (that is what incubation is about, carefully controlling access to extra >> common resources). The other is "not yet OpenStack", free-for-all. The >> latter group clearly benefits from being on the same list: they get >> extra attention from all those smart OpenStack people, and their >> marketing can benefit from the very blurry line between openstack and >> not-yet-openstack we maintain on the list. >> >> In summary, I certainly see the benefits of a single list for stackforge >> developers (and why people working on a limited number of vertical >> projects don't really mind either way...). But I fear that we maintain >> those benefits at the expense of the sanity of the horizontal programs >> in openstack, and therefore lower the quality of OpenStack as a result. >> >> PS: I don't think we can reach consensus on that one -- we might need to >> push it to the TC to make a final call. >> >> -- >> Thierry Carrez (ttx) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > -- > @flaper87 > Flavio Percoco > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Sincerely, Ruslan Kiianchuk.
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev