Agreed, we can include something to that effect on the website alongside the list details.
Robbie (who very nearly missed out a list after initially forgetting to reply-all, having just called that out earlier...) On 30 March 2016 at 11:30, Rob Godfrey <rob.j.godf...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > Additionally it might make sense to write a paragraph somewhere on > suggestions for best practice on mailing the list (like including > components / languages in use in the title or the body of the e-mail :-) ). > > -- Rob > > On 30 March 2016 at 11:25, Robbie Gemmell <rob...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Hello folks, >> >> Many moons ago, a seperate mailing list was established for Proton, >> back when it was purely a protocol engine other components would use. >> Its scope has since expanded beyond that and the separate mailing list >> has I feel been an increasing source of confusion and hassle of late >> more than anything else. Collapsing it into the other larger existing >> lists we have (that the traffic would otherwise have been on) seems to >> me like it would be an improvement across the board, and as such I >> have called this vote. >> >> I would propose that discussion (such as this) would head to the >> users@q.a.o list to join the similar/related/duplicate traffic already >> present, with remaining things going to the dev@q.a.o list as >> consistent with that list (e.g JIRA, GitHub integration mails, >> ReviewBoard, though the latter was never actually directed to proton@ >> to begin with..). >> >> Whilst redirecting JIRA etc emails should be easy enough (has been >> done before), I dont know what the precise options are regarding >> existing mail subscriptions to the list. There are significantly more >> subscribers to users@ than proton@, and many are duplicates, but some >> are not. I'd need to discuss options with infra, but first things >> first, the vote. >> >> I have gone straight to a vote on this because I feel this has already >> been discussed enough previously over time that many people will have >> already thought about it enough to quickly vote one way or the other, >> and it is past time to act on it if things head that way. Obviously >> things can be further discusssed at this point also if desired. >> >> Note that both users@ and proton@ are in the recipients. I expect the >> thread will splinter when someone forgets to reply-all, as almost all >> cross-posted thread on the lists do, but at least it can start on both >> for visibility to all. >> >> Robbie >>
