Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list (summary so far)
Morgan Fainberg wrote: TL;DR Don't split the community, work to improve the tools for those who are overwhelmed. (Email clients, enforcing use of subject tags, etc) Thanks everyone for the insightful comments ! Like I said earlier, we can keep it the way it is, but I just wanted to make sure the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. In this precise case it appears that we can try to minimize the drawbacks by using appropriate tools and techniques, while it's hard to preserve the cross-pollination benefits if we split the list. It's also a bit unclear that just separating stackforge topics would actually make that big of a difference. So my suggestion would be: - continue having everything on the same list - encourage the use of clear subject lines and topic prefixes - fight off-topic threads (feel free to join the squad) - replace redundant/recurrent information by appropriate reference info (think meeting reminders vs. ical feed) - exchange tips and tricks on how to deal with the mail pile efficiently And yes, the irony of having created a 60+ message thread to discuss reducing the amount of emails we all have to parse is not totally lost on me :) -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list (summary so far)
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Monty Taylor mord...@inaugust.com wrote: Can I suggest that you don't try purely mechanical filtering into folders? Instead, for a while, try using a threaded client, and configure it to show threads unexpanded by default. if we are into mail client tips, Emacs GNUS has an amazing way to deal with that with the 'scoring' feature which allow you to get a better scoring in the current mailbox according to the subject, from, conditionals and other patterns. You end up with the most important stuff you want to read at the top and with a different colour and the other stuff at the bottom. More infos here: http://www.emacs.uniyar.ac.ru/doc/em24h/emacs183.htm Chmouel. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
Honestly, with that reasoning, this approach strikes me as a technical solution to a political problem, a band-aid on a sprained ankle, and so on and so forth in that pattern. There was no shortage of talk about cross-project coordination challenges in HK and Portland, so it shouldn't be news to anyone -- but keeping all project lists consolidated into one doesn't seem like a good solution if we're already doing that today and still have just as much cross-project coordination problems. That coordination should be fostered separately through process by OS leadership, rather than mailing list structure. For what it's worth, I much prefer Caitlin's and Stefano's approach, separate established project lists with a single list for incubator projects. The tagging here isn't always consistent (or there at all sometimes -- we've all made that mistake before), so things often slip by the filters. I have 14 rules set up to catch most of the core projects, and I'm still getting tons more general dev discussion than I can keep up with (something I really *want* to be able to do, as both a developer and implementor). Brian -Original Message- From: Monty Taylor [mailto:mord...@inaugust.com] Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2013 1:48 AM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list On 11/14/2013 07:54 PM, Caitlin Bestler wrote: On 11/14/2013 5:12 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Hi everyone, I think that we have recently reached critical mass for the openstack-dev mailing-list, with 2267 messages posted in October, and November well on its way to pass 2000 again. Some of those are just off-topic (and I've been regularly fighting against them) but most of them are just about us covering an ever-increasing scope, stretching the definition of what we include in openstack development. Therefore I'd like to propose a split between two lists: *openstack-dev*: Discussions on future development for OpenStack official projects *stackforge-dev*: Discussions on development for stackforge-hosted projects I would suggest that each *established* project (core or incubator) have its own mailing list, and that openstack-dev be reserved for topics of potential interest across multiple projects (which new projects would qualify as). We've actually explicitly avoiding this model for quite some time on purpose. The main reason being that one of the hardest challenges we have is cross-project collaboration. Hacking just one one project? Not so hard. Producing the output of 18 in a coordinated fashion? Hard. Everyone does a great job so far of prefixing things. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list (summary so far)
A couple of quick points. 1) I think that splitting the list is the wrong approach. 2) Perhaps we need to look at adding a mechanism that enforces the use of tags in the subject line (send a nice sorry, but you need to indicate the topic(s) you are mailing about error back if it doesn't exist, keep an active list of these via infra?). 3) It might also make sense to have all stackforge projects include [stackforge] in the topic. That will help make filtering easier. Finally, I notice the difference in a threaded client from a flat client. I don't think I could subscribe to this list without a threaded client. TL;DR Don't split the community, work to improve the tools for those who are overwhelmed. (Email clients, enforcing use of subject tags, etc) On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Nick Chase nch...@mirantis.com wrote: I am one of those horizontal people (working on docs and basically one of the people responsible at my organization for keeping a handle on what's going on) and I'm totally against a split. Of COURSE we need to maintain the integrated/incubated/proposed spectrum. Saying that we need to keep all traffic on one list isn't suggesting we do away with that. But it IS a spectrum, and we should maintain that. Splitting the list is definitely splitting the community and I agree that it's a poison pill. Integrating new projects into the community is just as important as integrating them into the codebase. Without one the other won't happen nearly as effectively, and we do lose one of the strengths of the community as a whole. Part of this is psychology. Many of us are familiar with broken windows theory[1] in terms of code. For those of you who aren't, the idea is based on an experiment where they left an expensive car in a crime-ridden neighborhood and nothing happened to it -- until they broke a window. In coding it means you're less likely to kludge a patch to pristine code, but once you do you are more likely to do it again. Projects work hard to do things the OpenStack way because they feel from the start that they are already part of OpenStack, even if they aren't integrated. It also leads to another side effect, which I'll leave to you to decide whether it's good or bad. We do have a culture of there can be only one. Once a project is proposed in a space, that's it (mostly). We typically don't have multiple projects in that space. That's bad because it reduces innovation through competition, but it's good because we get focused development from the finite number of developers we have available. As I said, YMMV. Look, Monty is right: a good threaded client solves a multitude of problems. Definitely try that for a week before you set your mind on a decision. TL; DR Splitting the list is splitting the community, and that will lead to a decline in overall quality. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list (summary so far)
On 11/15/2013 05:06 AM, 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 Arguments in favor of keeping it the same * Provides a cross-pollination forum where external projects can learn * 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. I don't think this applies at the mailing list level. If someone wants attention from the infra team, for instance, I certainly hope they don't think they're going to get it by mentioning the need inside of a mailing list thread and hoping we'll see it. Mailing lists are for conversation and discussion. I see absolutely no reason to segregate some of those conversations as real and others as not. In fact, our original hard insistence that projects started off in the corner until they magically one day became openstack is what got us into the mess we've gone through originally with keystone (which needed a complete from-scratch rewrite) and now with neutron. Both of those came about before we had more inclusive ways of projects growing themselves. tl;dr Separation has been tried before, and it simple does not work. 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. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list (summary so far)
On 11/15/2013 12:08 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Adrian Otto wrote: If OpenStack starts a culture of exclusion instead of inclusion, that would start a dangerous trend that sets the wrong tone. It would quickly reach the point where new projects like mine would simply not come here. We would go somewhere else that does have a culture of inclusion. We would not employ the values of open design and open collaboration, and we would be back to the throw stuff over the wall approach to open source. That would be a tragedy. Don't destroy the things about OpenStack's community that make it awesome. It's definitely a trade-off between usability and community inclusion... Trust me, I understand the value of cross-pollination, which is why I wouldn't support a pure per-project split (as suggested elsewhere in this thread). I'm just trying to find the right balance. Because they ARE two different groups. That thinking is backwards. From a community perspective we are not two different groups. Making us into two groups is a huge mistake. I was talking about groups of projects. We have an incubation process to decide when new projects are allowed to start tapping into OpenStack common resources, like use an openstack/* repo, get into the integrated gate, or tap into QA or release management dudes for guidance. I see openstack-dev ML space as one of those common resources. Letting anyone use it to talk about their new stackforge project has some cost, even if it's an externality to you. This is not about excluding anyone, it's about prioritizing our resources. If we followed your line of thought, we should just abandon the project incubation process because it's a way to prevent promising projects from accessing resources they need in order to develop their full potential. Anyway, I don't expect to convince you, since you're clearly the one benefiting the most from the current setup. I'm on the other end of the spectrum, trying my best to keep my sanity with the ever-growing number of things I need to keep an eye on :) And maybe the benefits of unlimited cross-pollination are worth more than the drawback of forcing everyone to process enormous email piles every day. (Filtering is an option I have with well-behaved projects like Solum, I just fear it would not work so well for less filterable threads.) Can I suggest that you don't try purely mechanical filtering into folders? Instead, for a while, try using a threaded client, and configure it to show threads unexpanded by default. Then, when you're going to read openstack-dev, you can scan the subject lines with your eyes, which are AMAZINGLY good at pattern recognition and contextualization. It's pretty easy to skip over the non-OpenStack threads. BTW - in the 55 most recently active threads in openstack-dev, 8 of them are for topics that are only of interest to 'official' OpenStack projects. All 8 of them are properly prefixed and easy to ignore. There are a few, like: [openstack-dev] [Trove][Savanna][Murano] Unified Agent proposal discussion at Summit that involve integrated, incubated, and stackforge projects. But those are still related to integrated or incubated, so I did not include them in the 8. For the record, I'm pasting the topics and message counts here: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list (48 messages) [openstack-dev] [Neutron] New plug-ins requirements (7 messages) [openstack-dev] Is Havana keystone rpm actually splitting identity and assignment? (4 messages) [openstack-dev] Using AD for keystone authentication only (9 messages) [openstack-dev] Openstack + OpenContrail (2 messages) [openstack-dev] [Glance] Summit Session Summaries (2 messages) [openstack-dev] [nova][api] Is this a potential issue (11 messages) [openstack-dev] sqlalchemy-migrate 0.8.1 (2 messages) [openstack-dev] [qa] Proposals for Tempest core (5 messages) [openstack-dev] [Heat] Continue discussing multi-region orchestration (13 messages) [openstack-dev] Congress: an open policy framework (10 messages) [openstack-dev] [nova][object] One question to the resource tracker session (11 messages) [openstack-dev] [Solum] SFO Design Workshop [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron Tempest code sprint - 2nd week of January, Montreal, QC, Canada (27 messages) [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Troubleshooting OVS RPC API unit test error (3 messages) [openstack-dev] sqlalchemy-migrate needs a new release (15 messages) [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Find the compute host on which a VM runs (2 messages) [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Plugin and Driver Inclusion Requirements (4 messages) [openstack-dev] Shall backward compatibility env. vars be removed from python-clients? (6 messages) [openstack-dev] [horizon] User registrations (9 messages) [openstack-dev] [Heat] rough draft of Heat autoscaling API (26 messages) [openstack-dev] [Solum] Command Line Interface for Solum (20 messages) [openstack-dev] [nova] future fate of nova-network? (3 messages
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list (summary so far)
On Saturday, November 16, 2013 2:09:35 AM, Monty Taylor wrote: On 11/15/2013 12:08 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Adrian Otto wrote: If OpenStack starts a culture of exclusion instead of inclusion, that would start a dangerous trend that sets the wrong tone. It would quickly reach the point where new projects like mine would simply not come here. We would go somewhere else that does have a culture of inclusion. We would not employ the values of open design and open collaboration, and we would be back to the throw stuff over the wall approach to open source. That would be a tragedy. Don't destroy the things about OpenStack's community that make it awesome. It's definitely a trade-off between usability and community inclusion... Trust me, I understand the value of cross-pollination, which is why I wouldn't support a pure per-project split (as suggested elsewhere in this thread). I'm just trying to find the right balance. Because they ARE two different groups. That thinking is backwards. From a community perspective we are not two different groups. Making us into two groups is a huge mistake. I was talking about groups of projects. We have an incubation process to decide when new projects are allowed to start tapping into OpenStack common resources, like use an openstack/* repo, get into the integrated gate, or tap into QA or release management dudes for guidance. I see openstack-dev ML space as one of those common resources. Letting anyone use it to talk about their new stackforge project has some cost, even if it's an externality to you. This is not about excluding anyone, it's about prioritizing our resources. If we followed your line of thought, we should just abandon the project incubation process because it's a way to prevent promising projects from accessing resources they need in order to develop their full potential. Anyway, I don't expect to convince you, since you're clearly the one benefiting the most from the current setup. I'm on the other end of the spectrum, trying my best to keep my sanity with the ever-growing number of things I need to keep an eye on :) And maybe the benefits of unlimited cross-pollination are worth more than the drawback of forcing everyone to process enormous email piles every day. (Filtering is an option I have with well-behaved projects like Solum, I just fear it would not work so well for less filterable threads.) Can I suggest that you don't try purely mechanical filtering into folders? Instead, for a while, try using a threaded client, and configure it to show threads unexpanded by default. Then, when you're going to read openstack-dev, you can scan the subject lines with your eyes, which are AMAZINGLY good at pattern recognition and contextualization. It's pretty easy to skip over the non-OpenStack threads. BTW - in the 55 most recently active threads in openstack-dev, 8 of them are for topics that are only of interest to 'official' OpenStack projects. All 8 of them are properly prefixed and easy to ignore. There are a few, like: [openstack-dev] [Trove][Savanna][Murano] Unified Agent proposal discussion at Summit that involve integrated, incubated, and stackforge projects. But those are still related to integrated or incubated, so I did not include them in the 8. For the record, I'm pasting the topics and message counts here: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list (48 messages) [openstack-dev] [Neutron] New plug-ins requirements (7 messages) [openstack-dev] Is Havana keystone rpm actually splitting identity and assignment? (4 messages) [openstack-dev] Using AD for keystone authentication only (9 messages) [openstack-dev] Openstack + OpenContrail (2 messages) [openstack-dev] [Glance] Summit Session Summaries (2 messages) [openstack-dev] [nova][api] Is this a potential issue (11 messages) [openstack-dev] sqlalchemy-migrate 0.8.1 (2 messages) [openstack-dev] [qa] Proposals for Tempest core (5 messages) [openstack-dev] [Heat] Continue discussing multi-region orchestration (13 messages) [openstack-dev] Congress: an open policy framework (10 messages) [openstack-dev] [nova][object] One question to the resource tracker session (11 messages) [openstack-dev] [Solum] SFO Design Workshop [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Neutron Tempest code sprint - 2nd week of January, Montreal, QC, Canada (27 messages) [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Troubleshooting OVS RPC API unit test error (3 messages) [openstack-dev] sqlalchemy-migrate needs a new release (15 messages) [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Find the compute host on which a VM runs (2 messages) [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Plugin and Driver Inclusion Requirements (4 messages) [openstack-dev] Shall backward compatibility env. vars be removed from python-clients? (6 messages) [openstack-dev] [horizon] User registrations (9 messages) [openstack-dev] [Heat] rough draft of Heat autoscaling API (26 messages) [openstack-dev] [Solum] Command Line Interface for Solum (20 messages) [openstack-dev] [nova] future fate
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list (summary so far)
On 11/16/2013 02:52 AM, Monty Taylor wrote: On 11/15/2013 05:06 AM, 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 Arguments in favor of keeping it the same * Provides a cross-pollination forum where external projects can learn * 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. I don't think this applies at the mailing list level. If someone wants attention from the infra team, for instance, I certainly hope they don't think they're going to get it by mentioning the need inside of a mailing list thread and hoping we'll see it. Mailing lists are for conversation and discussion. I see absolutely no reason to segregate some of those conversations as real and others as not. In fact, our original hard insistence that projects started off in the corner until they magically one day became openstack is what got us into the mess we've gone through originally with keystone (which needed a complete from-scratch rewrite) and now with neutron. I wouldn't have believed it until I witnessed it myself but yes, Monty is absolutely correct in this regard. I will be changing my vote on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/56432/ Needing to see things for myself is why I am where I am, and while I am not comfortable where I am, it sure gives me a whole lot of information I didn't have before. Both of those came about before we had more inclusive ways of projects growing themselves. tl;dr Separation has been tried before, and it simple does not work. 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. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list (summary so far)
I am one of those horizontal people (working on docs and basically one of the people responsible at my organization for keeping a handle on what's going on) and I'm totally against a split. Of COURSE we need to maintain the integrated/incubated/proposed spectrum. Saying that we need to keep all traffic on one list isn't suggesting we do away with that. But it IS a spectrum, and we should maintain that. Splitting the list is definitely splitting the community and I agree that it's a poison pill. Integrating new projects into the community is just as important as integrating them into the codebase. Without one the other won't happen nearly as effectively, and we do lose one of the strengths of the community as a whole. Part of this is psychology. Many of us are familiar with broken windows theory[1] in terms of code. For those of you who aren't, the idea is based on an experiment where they left an expensive car in a crime-ridden neighborhood and nothing happened to it -- until they broke a window. In coding it means you're less likely to kludge a patch to pristine code, but once you do you are more likely to do it again. Projects work hard to do things the OpenStack way because they feel from the start that they are already part of OpenStack, even if they aren't integrated. It also leads to another side effect, which I'll leave to you to decide whether it's good or bad. We do have a culture of there can be only one. Once a project is proposed in a space, that's it (mostly). We typically don't have multiple projects in that space. That's bad because it reduces innovation through competition, but it's good because we get focused development from the finite number of developers we have available. As I said, YMMV. Look, Monty is right: a good threaded client solves a multitude of problems. Definitely try that for a week before you set your mind on a decision. TL; DR Splitting the list is splitting the community, and that will lead to a decline in overall quality. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
On 11/14/2013 02:25 PM, Mark Washenberger wrote: On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:19 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org mailto:thie...@openstack.org wrote: Thierry Carrez wrote: [...] That will not solve all issues. We should also collectively make sure that *usage questions are re-routed* to the openstack general mailing-list, where they belong. Too many people still answer off-topic questions here on openstack-dev, which encourages people to be off-topic in the future (traffic on the openstack general ML has been mostly stable, with only 868 posts in October). With those actions, I hope that traffic on openstack-dev would drop back to the 1000-1500 range, which would be more manageable for everyone. Other suggestion: we could stop posting meeting reminders to -dev (I know, I'm guilty of it) and only post something if the meeting time changes, or if the weekly meeting is canceled for whatever reason. It seems excessive, I agree. But if your meeting time bounces on a biweekly schedule to accommodate multiple timezones, I think its quite necessary. And the fact that people forget the times are in UTC Honestly I'd be +1 for an openstack-meeting list where people posted announces and minutes (should they wish). There are a subset of us that would find that useful, and it would move the traffic off of -dev. Honestly, I don't the QA meeting post to the main list because of volume, but if we had a separate place for that, it would be cool. -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
2013/11/16 Sean Dague s...@dague.net On 11/14/2013 02:25 PM, Mark Washenberger wrote: It seems excessive, I agree. But if your meeting time bounces on a biweekly schedule to accommodate multiple timezones, I think its quite necessary. And the fact that people forget the times are in UTC Honestly I'd be +1 for an openstack-meeting list where people posted announces and minutes (should they wish). There are a subset of us that would find that useful, and it would move the traffic off of -dev. I totally agree with having an openstack-meeting list to keep us posted with minutes and meetings. +1 --- irc: ajo / mangelajo Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo +34 636 52 25 69 skype: ajoajoajo ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
Le 14/11/2013 20:46, Clint Byrum a écrit : Now, choose which city will grow faster and produce more innovation. The problem is larger than only innovation, it is also making sure the Stackforge projects are also a starting point for contributing to Openstack in a different manner. ATCs can also get the opportunity to jump in another project on their spare time if they wish. Isolating Stackforge projects into a separate mailing-list would then reduce visibility to Stackforge projects and as a consequence would reduce the permeability between Openstack and Stackforge. On a technical note, as a Stackforge contributor, I'm trying to implement best practices of Openstack coding into my own project, and I'm facing day-to-day issues trying to understand what Oslo libs do or how they can be used in a fashion manner. Should I want to ask question to the community, I would have to cross-post to both lists. One last point, having two different lists with most of people subscribing to both wouldn't help reduce the noise, as you would still get all the messages (maybe in two different folders, but still getting'em). I totally agree with the fact that openstack-dev@ is noisy. That said, we need to enforce the use of Subject headers and maybe accept meetings reminders are not relevant to be communicated using this channel (we could still notify people within the IRC rooms) and chase up any non-development question, that would be a first step for that. One last thing I'm thinking about is logging IRC channel discussions so we could keep track of discussions over there, that would maybe help reducing the number of chatty messages we're sending off to the list just about implementation or reviews concerns. 2cts, -Sylvain ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
Sylvain Bauza sylvain.ba...@bull.net wrote on 15/11/2013 11:13:37 AM: On a technical note, as a Stackforge contributor, I'm trying to implement best practices of Openstack coding into my own project, and I'm facing day-to-day issues trying to understand what Oslo libs do or how they can be used in a fashion manner. Should I want to ask question to the community, I would have to cross-post to both lists. +1 To generalize a bit, there are many stackforge projects which are tightly related to more mature OpenStack projects, and restricting the discussion to a subset of the audience might not be a good idea. For example, TaskFlow versus Mistral versus Heat, Solum versus Heat, Manila versus Cinder, Designate versus Neutron, and I am sure there are (and surely will be) other examples. IMO, proper tagging could be a better solution. Regards, Alex ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list (summary so far)
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 Arguments in favor of keeping it the same * Provides a cross-pollination forum where external projects can learn * 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
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list (summary so far)
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
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list (summary so far)
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
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list (summary so far)
On Nov 15, 2013, at 2:06 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org 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 Few of us actually try to read all the email sent to openstack-dev. Category filtering features are available in our list server already, and I expect all of us routinely use filtering techniques to manage email volume. Arguments in favor of keeping it the same * Provides a cross-pollination forum where external projects can learn * More chaos creates more innovation The value of cross-pollination and innovation is profound, and should not be understated. These are key aspects of the OpenStack community ecosystem that make it attractive to new innovators. If you erode the value of community collaboration by making a second class community, it will certainly stunt growth, and the total value of the community will fade. In my view the community aspects of open design and development are the magic that has made OpenStack successful. The current setup encourages new projects that are closely integrated with other OpenStack projects. For example, when I have a Heat+Solum integration concern, I can label the message with [Heat][Solum] and we can easily have a cross-group conversation. If there were two separate lists, this would require me to cross post, and all of us that participate on both teams would get two copies of the message and every reply to each of the threads. It would show up in two different message archives. Yuck! That would motivate us to have the conversation only on openstack-dev which would probably reduce the number of Solum developers that would see it. This would certainly slow down innovation. I am bringing new developers into this ecosystem, and teaching them the OpenStack way of doing things. These developers will integrate into the community and begin working on other OpenStack projects like Keystone, and Oslo, and Heat, and other community projects that are not yet incubated. Everyone benefits. So you should add: * supports growth of community * results in the improvement in the overall quality of OpenStack 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). We do actually use the right tags in the subject. This solution would work fine for reduction of volume. 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 the value of innovation in our community justifies some email client configuration by those of us who have special roles. If OpenStack starts a culture of exclusion instead of inclusion, that would start a dangerous trend that sets the wrong tone. It would quickly reach the point where new projects like mine would simply not come here. We would go somewhere else that does have a culture of inclusion. We would not employ the values of open design and open collaboration, and we would be back to the throw stuff over the wall approach to open source. That would be a tragedy. Don't destroy the things about OpenStack's community that make it awesome. Because they ARE two different groups. That thinking is backwards. From a community perspective we are not two different groups. Making us into two groups is a huge mistake. 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. If we take the action you are
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list (summary so far)
Adrian Otto wrote: If OpenStack starts a culture of exclusion instead of inclusion, that would start a dangerous trend that sets the wrong tone. It would quickly reach the point where new projects like mine would simply not come here. We would go somewhere else that does have a culture of inclusion. We would not employ the values of open design and open collaboration, and we would be back to the throw stuff over the wall approach to open source. That would be a tragedy. Don't destroy the things about OpenStack's community that make it awesome. It's definitely a trade-off between usability and community inclusion... Trust me, I understand the value of cross-pollination, which is why I wouldn't support a pure per-project split (as suggested elsewhere in this thread). I'm just trying to find the right balance. Because they ARE two different groups. That thinking is backwards. From a community perspective we are not two different groups. Making us into two groups is a huge mistake. I was talking about groups of projects. We have an incubation process to decide when new projects are allowed to start tapping into OpenStack common resources, like use an openstack/* repo, get into the integrated gate, or tap into QA or release management dudes for guidance. I see openstack-dev ML space as one of those common resources. Letting anyone use it to talk about their new stackforge project has some cost, even if it's an externality to you. This is not about excluding anyone, it's about prioritizing our resources. If we followed your line of thought, we should just abandon the project incubation process because it's a way to prevent promising projects from accessing resources they need in order to develop their full potential. Anyway, I don't expect to convince you, since you're clearly the one benefiting the most from the current setup. I'm on the other end of the spectrum, trying my best to keep my sanity with the ever-growing number of things I need to keep an eye on :) And maybe the benefits of unlimited cross-pollination are worth more than the drawback of forcing everyone to process enormous email piles every day. (Filtering is an option I have with well-behaved projects like Solum, I just fear it would not work so well for less filterable threads.) -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list (summary so far)
On 11/15/2013 02:06 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Arguments in favor of splitting openstack-dev / stackforge-dev * People can easily filter out all non-openstack discussions * Traffic would drop by about 25% I'm not so convinced about this figure, as others pointed out. * Removes confusion as to which projects are actually in openstack Arguments in favor of keeping it the same * Provides a cross-pollination forum where external projects can learn * More chaos creates more innovation chaos creates just chaos in this context :) I don't buy Clint's rhetoric applied to this case :) Anyway, I've looked at my folder and it looks like 90% of the messages to openstack-dev have topics in the subject line. Filtering on the client side should be easy to do and I'd like to have a few volunteers run an experiment over one week to see if filters can ease the pain. I'd also like to get to an agreement that support requests sent to openstack-dev should not be answered and instead should be redirected gently to openstack@lists. and/or ask.openstack.org. Maybe we can restart this conversation in a week and see how things are going? /stef -- Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list (summary so far)
Excerpts from Stefano Maffulli's message of 2013-11-15 09:12:05 -0800: On 11/15/2013 02:06 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Arguments in favor of splitting openstack-dev / stackforge-dev * People can easily filter out all non-openstack discussions * Traffic would drop by about 25% I'm not so convinced about this figure, as others pointed out. * Removes confusion as to which projects are actually in openstack Arguments in favor of keeping it the same * Provides a cross-pollination forum where external projects can learn * More chaos creates more innovation chaos creates just chaos in this context :) I don't buy Clint's rhetoric applied to this case :) You say that like chaos is all bad. The trade-off is that the chaos create's chain reactions often leading to _more_ energy being released. This is not always the most efficient use of energy, but it does unlock energy that may never have been realized. I have to wonder if Mistral would have been created the way it was if TaskFlow discussions were divided between the core list and stackforge list. I think this is rather interesting, that we are debating how to scale a list of compute nodes that we call developers by effectively creating cells. We all know that this only solves one problem and now creates another one. One cell can still be overloaded. The balance between the two is simply not going to hold true. Perhaps the answer is instead to look at why the compute nodes feel that they need to look at every single broadcast topic. Are we all using horrible email clients (probably, because all email clients are horrible) or are we just inept? Could we benefit from some training on this subject? Better tools? A cultural acceptance that some people will likely miss some messages? Anyway, I've looked at my folder and it looks like 90% of the messages to openstack-dev have topics in the subject line. Filtering on the client side should be easy to do and I'd like to have a few volunteers run an experiment over one week to see if filters can ease the pain. I don't filter at all. I use sup-mail, which is an unmaintained ruby based client like notmuch that has one benefit worth using an unmaintained ruby anything. It very easily allows killing threads without deleting them. This means that as soon as I see a subject line is not interesting, I press on the thread, and it is gone from my view. Until I do a local search with '\', which then searches the local xapian index and may show killed threads. Neat huh? This may be why I don't favor splitting, because I don't get overwhelmed by long threads.. they're gone 1 or 2 messages in. I'm not suggesting that everybody switch to sup. But rather that we try to investigate why the list is overwhelming people before we just split it in two, which I do believe will have large unintended and difficult to detect consequences. I'd also like to get to an agreement that support requests sent to openstack-dev should not be answered and instead should be redirected gently to openstack@lists. and/or ask.openstack.org. My general sense is that this is already happening. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list (summary so far)
Another thing that I remember from talking with people who work at yahoo on the hadoop project and was an insight early on for me. I remember those folks saying that about 2 hours of there day is spent on catching up on mailing list emails and reviews. This is/was a change in how they operated when they joined the hadoop (or related hadoop project) and my guess is that this same change is happening to people in the openstack project (and it does take some getting used to). I also agree with the sentiment that clint has stated, where I honestly agree that the 'chaos' is actually beneficial for a new project like openstack (newish I guess). Without that 'chaos' I do agree that we would not have as much innovation or cross-pollination among projects, which to me means that we start going down a path of silos (which is bad, and believe me at yahoo I know all about silos). TLDR: opensource projects take some getting used to, especially with regards to emails and reviews, but IMHO lets keep the chaos until openstack is more mature (if that ever occurs?). On 11/15/13 9:51 AM, Clint Byrum cl...@fewbar.com wrote: Excerpts from Stefano Maffulli's message of 2013-11-15 09:12:05 -0800: On 11/15/2013 02:06 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Arguments in favor of splitting openstack-dev / stackforge-dev * People can easily filter out all non-openstack discussions * Traffic would drop by about 25% I'm not so convinced about this figure, as others pointed out. * Removes confusion as to which projects are actually in openstack Arguments in favor of keeping it the same * Provides a cross-pollination forum where external projects can learn * More chaos creates more innovation chaos creates just chaos in this context :) I don't buy Clint's rhetoric applied to this case :) You say that like chaos is all bad. The trade-off is that the chaos create's chain reactions often leading to _more_ energy being released. This is not always the most efficient use of energy, but it does unlock energy that may never have been realized. I have to wonder if Mistral would have been created the way it was if TaskFlow discussions were divided between the core list and stackforge list. I think this is rather interesting, that we are debating how to scale a list of compute nodes that we call developers by effectively creating cells. We all know that this only solves one problem and now creates another one. One cell can still be overloaded. The balance between the two is simply not going to hold true. Perhaps the answer is instead to look at why the compute nodes feel that they need to look at every single broadcast topic. Are we all using horrible email clients (probably, because all email clients are horrible) or are we just inept? Could we benefit from some training on this subject? Better tools? A cultural acceptance that some people will likely miss some messages? Anyway, I've looked at my folder and it looks like 90% of the messages to openstack-dev have topics in the subject line. Filtering on the client side should be easy to do and I'd like to have a few volunteers run an experiment over one week to see if filters can ease the pain. I don't filter at all. I use sup-mail, which is an unmaintained ruby based client like notmuch that has one benefit worth using an unmaintained ruby anything. It very easily allows killing threads without deleting them. This means that as soon as I see a subject line is not interesting, I press on the thread, and it is gone from my view. Until I do a local search with '\', which then searches the local xapian index and may show killed threads. Neat huh? This may be why I don't favor splitting, because I don't get overwhelmed by long threads.. they're gone 1 or 2 messages in. I'm not suggesting that everybody switch to sup. But rather that we try to investigate why the list is overwhelming people before we just split it in two, which I do believe will have large unintended and difficult to detect consequences. I'd also like to get to an agreement that support requests sent to openstack-dev should not be answered and instead should be redirected gently to openstack@lists. and/or ask.openstack.org. My general sense is that this is already happening. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list (summary so far)
Coming from QA/Ops, I agree that there are horizontal teams that need to get info from the mailing list(s) across the spectrum. I also agree with Clint's and Adrian's statements about the synergies and serendipities of all the developers on one list. But I also understand the feeling of drowning in email. I would like to present a solution that was employed on another development project I participated in. We are already using key words for projects, and I've seen the use of [RFC]. In the other project, we had key words for the stage each thread was in: Proposed Discussion Decision Request Info These tags (no brackets but all caps) allowed those of us who needed to know details but not follow the discussion to get the resolved decision easily. And, yes, it made filtering pretty easy. Perhaps a collection of keywords for status as well as project could help in reducing the noise for various participants. Just a humble observation. --Rocky From: Stefano Maffulli [mailto:stef...@openstack.org] On 11/15/2013 02:06 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Arguments in favor of splitting openstack-dev / stackforge-dev * People can easily filter out all non-openstack discussions * Traffic would drop by about 25% I'm not so convinced about this figure, as others pointed out. * Removes confusion as to which projects are actually in openstack Arguments in favor of keeping it the same * Provides a cross-pollination forum where external projects can learn * More chaos creates more innovation chaos creates just chaos in this context :) I don't buy Clint's rhetoric applied to this case :) Anyway, I've looked at my folder and it looks like 90% of the messages to openstack-dev have topics in the subject line. Filtering on the client side should be easy to do and I'd like to have a few volunteers run an experiment over one week to see if filters can ease the pain. I'd also like to get to an agreement that support requests sent to openstack-dev should not be answered and instead should be redirected gently to openstack@lists. and/or ask.openstack.org. Maybe we can restart this conversation in a week and see how things are going? /stef -- Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
Agree with Clint completely! In my opinion it would be a big mistake to separate the lists. There are tools in modern e-mail readers to filter specific content into separate views. Why should OpenStack Foundation do it for us? Alex Freedland Co-Founder and Chairman Mirantis, Inc. On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Clint Byrum cl...@fewbar.com wrote: Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2013-11-14 05:12:55 -0800: Hi everyone, I think that we have recently reached critical mass for the openstack-dev mailing-list, with 2267 messages posted in October, and November well on its way to pass 2000 again. Some of those are just off-topic (and I've been regularly fighting against them) but most of them are just about us covering an ever-increasing scope, stretching the definition of what we include in openstack development. Therefore I'd like to propose a split between two lists: *openstack-dev*: Discussions on future development for OpenStack official projects *stackforge-dev*: Discussions on development for stackforge-hosted projects Non-official OpenStack-related projects would get discussed in stackforge-dev (or any other list of their preference), while openstack-dev would be focused on openstack official programs (including incubated integrated projects). That means discussion about Solum, Mistral, Congress or Murano (stackforge/* repos in gerrit) would now live on stackforge-dev. Discussions about Glance, TripleO or Oslo libraries (openstack*/* repos on gerrit) would happen on openstack-dev. This will allow easier filtering and prioritization; OpenStack developers interested in tracking promising stackforge projects would subscribe to both lists. That will not solve all issues. We should also collectively make sure that *usage questions are re-routed* to the openstack general mailing-list, where they belong. Too many people still answer off-topic questions here on openstack-dev, which encourages people to be off-topic in the future (traffic on the openstack general ML has been mostly stable, with only 868 posts in October). With those actions, I hope that traffic on openstack-dev would drop back to the 1000-1500 range, which would be more manageable for everyone. Allow me an analogy if you will: Consider a burgeoning city. There are people who have been around a long time. Some are politicians, some work for the city, some are just good citizens. These people see newcomers in the commons and greet them with open arms. Those who have only been around a while see those and see that this is a city where new people are welcome, and they do the same as the old timers, welcoming new residents and visitors alike, and they also feel even more welcome than before they noticed that. Though newcomers must wait a while and gain the trust of the old-timers to call themselves citizens, they are already encouraged to participate in discussions at every level and to organize themselves in the same way as the old-timers. Now consider a different city. Things are quiet in the commons. Newcomers are greeted with a sign. Newcomers over there-. That part of town is unknown to the rest of the world. It has less infrastructure. It also has very little representation in the government. The line is very clear between the citizens and the newcomers. When the newcomers want to become full citizens, they have to go before a council of old-timers, some of whom have specifically decided to ignore newcomers until this moment. Now, choose which city will grow faster and produce more innovation. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
On 11/15/2013 04:13 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote: Le 14/11/2013 20:46, Clint Byrum a écrit : Now, choose which city will grow faster and produce more innovation. The problem is larger than only innovation, it is also making sure the Stackforge projects are also a starting point for contributing to Openstack in a different manner. ATCs can also get the opportunity to jump in another project on their spare time if they wish. Isolating Stackforge projects into a separate mailing-list would then reduce visibility to Stackforge projects and as a consequence would reduce the permeability between Openstack and Stackforge. On a technical note, as a Stackforge contributor, I'm trying to implement best practices of Openstack coding into my own project, and I'm facing day-to-day issues trying to understand what Oslo libs do or how they can be used in a fashion manner. Should I want to ask question to the community, I would have to cross-post to both lists. One last point, having two different lists with most of people subscribing to both wouldn't help reduce the noise, as you would still get all the messages (maybe in two different folders, but still getting'em). I totally agree with the fact that openstack-dev@ is noisy. That said, we need to enforce the use of Subject headers and maybe accept meetings reminders are not relevant to be communicated using this channel (we could still notify people within the IRC rooms) and chase up any non-development question, that would be a first step for that. One last thing I'm thinking about is logging IRC channel discussions so we could keep track of discussions over there, that would maybe help reducing the number of chatty messages we're sending off to the list just about implementation or reviews concerns. IRC channels are currently able to be logged, and several of them are. http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/ If you have another channel you want logged, it's totally an easily requestable thing. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
On 11/14/2013 02:46 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2013-11-14 05:12:55 -0800: Hi everyone, I think that we have recently reached critical mass for the openstack-dev mailing-list, with 2267 messages posted in October, and November well on its way to pass 2000 again. Some of those are just off-topic (and I've been regularly fighting against them) but most of them are just about us covering an ever-increasing scope, stretching the definition of what we include in openstack development. Therefore I'd like to propose a split between two lists: *openstack-dev*: Discussions on future development for OpenStack official projects *stackforge-dev*: Discussions on development for stackforge-hosted projects Non-official OpenStack-related projects would get discussed in stackforge-dev (or any other list of their preference), while openstack-dev would be focused on openstack official programs (including incubated integrated projects). That means discussion about Solum, Mistral, Congress or Murano (stackforge/* repos in gerrit) would now live on stackforge-dev. Discussions about Glance, TripleO or Oslo libraries (openstack*/* repos on gerrit) would happen on openstack-dev. This will allow easier filtering and prioritization; OpenStack developers interested in tracking promising stackforge projects would subscribe to both lists. That will not solve all issues. We should also collectively make sure that *usage questions are re-routed* to the openstack general mailing-list, where they belong. Too many people still answer off-topic questions here on openstack-dev, which encourages people to be off-topic in the future (traffic on the openstack general ML has been mostly stable, with only 868 posts in October). With those actions, I hope that traffic on openstack-dev would drop back to the 1000-1500 range, which would be more manageable for everyone. Allow me an analogy if you will: Consider a burgeoning city. There are people who have been around a long time. Some are politicians, some work for the city, some are just good citizens. These people see newcomers in the commons and greet them with open arms. Those who have only been around a while see those and see that this is a city where new people are welcome, and they do the same as the old timers, welcoming new residents and visitors alike, and they also feel even more welcome than before they noticed that. Though newcomers must wait a while and gain the trust of the old-timers to call themselves citizens, they are already encouraged to participate in discussions at every level and to organize themselves in the same way as the old-timers. Now consider a different city. Things are quiet in the commons. Newcomers are greeted with a sign. Newcomers over there-. That part of town is unknown to the rest of the world. It has less infrastructure. It also has very little representation in the government. The line is very clear between the citizens and the newcomers. When the newcomers want to become full citizens, they have to go before a council of old-timers, some of whom have specifically decided to ignore newcomers until this moment. Now, choose which city will grow faster and produce more innovation. I agree with this 100%. I think that splitting the lists is a mistake. My email client helps me cope with the traffic just fine. I use Thunderbird, and I have openstack-dev threaded. I can typically tell in a quick scan of the topics which ones I need to read. The whole point of stackforge is that we want to be an inviting place for collaboration, not a closed tower of special people. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
On 11/14/2013 07:54 PM, Caitlin Bestler wrote: On 11/14/2013 5:12 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Hi everyone, I think that we have recently reached critical mass for the openstack-dev mailing-list, with 2267 messages posted in October, and November well on its way to pass 2000 again. Some of those are just off-topic (and I've been regularly fighting against them) but most of them are just about us covering an ever-increasing scope, stretching the definition of what we include in openstack development. Therefore I'd like to propose a split between two lists: *openstack-dev*: Discussions on future development for OpenStack official projects *stackforge-dev*: Discussions on development for stackforge-hosted projects I would suggest that each *established* project (core or incubator) have its own mailing list, and that openstack-dev be reserved for topics of potential interest across multiple projects (which new projects would qualify as). We've actually explicitly avoiding this model for quite some time on purpose. The main reason being that one of the hardest challenges we have is cross-project collaboration. Hacking just one one project? Not so hard. Producing the output of 18 in a coordinated fashion? Hard. Everyone does a great job so far of prefixing things. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
Hi everyone, I think that we have recently reached critical mass for the openstack-dev mailing-list, with 2267 messages posted in October, and November well on its way to pass 2000 again. Some of those are just off-topic (and I've been regularly fighting against them) but most of them are just about us covering an ever-increasing scope, stretching the definition of what we include in openstack development. Therefore I'd like to propose a split between two lists: *openstack-dev*: Discussions on future development for OpenStack official projects *stackforge-dev*: Discussions on development for stackforge-hosted projects Non-official OpenStack-related projects would get discussed in stackforge-dev (or any other list of their preference), while openstack-dev would be focused on openstack official programs (including incubated integrated projects). That means discussion about Solum, Mistral, Congress or Murano (stackforge/* repos in gerrit) would now live on stackforge-dev. Discussions about Glance, TripleO or Oslo libraries (openstack*/* repos on gerrit) would happen on openstack-dev. This will allow easier filtering and prioritization; OpenStack developers interested in tracking promising stackforge projects would subscribe to both lists. That will not solve all issues. We should also collectively make sure that *usage questions are re-routed* to the openstack general mailing-list, where they belong. Too many people still answer off-topic questions here on openstack-dev, which encourages people to be off-topic in the future (traffic on the openstack general ML has been mostly stable, with only 868 posts in October). With those actions, I hope that traffic on openstack-dev would drop back to the 1000-1500 range, which would be more manageable for everyone. Thoughts ? -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
Thierry Carrez wrote: [...] That will not solve all issues. We should also collectively make sure that *usage questions are re-routed* to the openstack general mailing-list, where they belong. Too many people still answer off-topic questions here on openstack-dev, which encourages people to be off-topic in the future (traffic on the openstack general ML has been mostly stable, with only 868 posts in October). With those actions, I hope that traffic on openstack-dev would drop back to the 1000-1500 range, which would be more manageable for everyone. Other suggestion: we could stop posting meeting reminders to -dev (I know, I'm guilty of it) and only post something if the meeting time changes, or if the weekly meeting is canceled for whatever reason. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
On Thu, Nov 14 2013, Thierry Carrez wrote: Other suggestion: we could stop posting meeting reminders to -dev (I know, I'm guilty of it) and only post something if the meeting time changes, or if the weekly meeting is canceled for whatever reason. Good suggestion. -- Julien Danjou -- Free Software hacker - independent consultant -- http://julien.danjou.info signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
On Thu, Nov 14 2013, Thierry Carrez wrote: Thoughts ? I agree on the need to split, the traffic is getting huge. As I'd have to subscribe to both openstack-dev and stackforge-dev, that would not help me personally, but I think it can be an easy and first step. -- Julien Danjou -- Free Software hacker - independent consultant -- http://julien.danjou.info signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
Yeah, that's big problem... Especially when you are trying to keep track on lots of topics... I suppose this solution will do letters' prioritisation at least easier for developers and everybody who is subscribed on openstack-dev. Nice idea. On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.orgwrote: Hi everyone, I think that we have recently reached critical mass for the openstack-dev mailing-list, with 2267 messages posted in October, and November well on its way to pass 2000 again. Some of those are just off-topic (and I've been regularly fighting against them) but most of them are just about us covering an ever-increasing scope, stretching the definition of what we include in openstack development. Therefore I'd like to propose a split between two lists: *openstack-dev*: Discussions on future development for OpenStack official projects *stackforge-dev*: Discussions on development for stackforge-hosted projects Non-official OpenStack-related projects would get discussed in stackforge-dev (or any other list of their preference), while openstack-dev would be focused on openstack official programs (including incubated integrated projects). That means discussion about Solum, Mistral, Congress or Murano (stackforge/* repos in gerrit) would now live on stackforge-dev. Discussions about Glance, TripleO or Oslo libraries (openstack*/* repos on gerrit) would happen on openstack-dev. This will allow easier filtering and prioritization; OpenStack developers interested in tracking promising stackforge projects would subscribe to both lists. That will not solve all issues. We should also collectively make sure that *usage questions are re-routed* to the openstack general mailing-list, where they belong. Too many people still answer off-topic questions here on openstack-dev, which encourages people to be off-topic in the future (traffic on the openstack general ML has been mostly stable, with only 868 posts in October). With those actions, I hope that traffic on openstack-dev would drop back to the 1000-1500 range, which would be more manageable for everyone. Thoughts ? -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Best regards, Dina Belova Software Engineer Mirantis Inc. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 02:19:24PM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: Thierry Carrez wrote: [...] That will not solve all issues. We should also collectively make sure that *usage questions are re-routed* to the openstack general mailing-list, where they belong. Too many people still answer off-topic questions here on openstack-dev, which encourages people to be off-topic in the future (traffic on the openstack general ML has been mostly stable, with only 868 posts in October). With those actions, I hope that traffic on openstack-dev would drop back to the 1000-1500 range, which would be more manageable for everyone. Other suggestion: we could stop posting meeting reminders to -dev (I know, I'm guilty of it) and only post something if the meeting time changes, or if the weekly meeting is canceled for whatever reason. Is there somewhere on the website which keeps a record of all regular scheduled meetings people can discover / refer to easily ? Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
On Thu, Nov 14 2013, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: Is there somewhere on the website which keeps a record of all regular scheduled meetings people can discover / refer to easily ? It's all on the wiki: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings -- Julien Danjou // Free Software hacker / independent consultant // http://julien.danjou.info signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
This would also have the added benefit of reducing the times people conflate related open source projects from stackforge with OpenStack itself. Having related oss discussions on a list called OpenStack-Dev may certainly have given the wrong impression to the casual observer. On Nov 14, 2013 7:12 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote: Hi everyone, I think that we have recently reached critical mass for the openstack-dev mailing-list, with 2267 messages posted in October, and November well on its way to pass 2000 again. Some of those are just off-topic (and I've been regularly fighting against them) but most of them are just about us covering an ever-increasing scope, stretching the definition of what we include in openstack development. Therefore I'd like to propose a split between two lists: *openstack-dev*: Discussions on future development for OpenStack official projects *stackforge-dev*: Discussions on development for stackforge-hosted projects Non-official OpenStack-related projects would get discussed in stackforge-dev (or any other list of their preference), while openstack-dev would be focused on openstack official programs (including incubated integrated projects). That means discussion about Solum, Mistral, Congress or Murano (stackforge/* repos in gerrit) would now live on stackforge-dev. Discussions about Glance, TripleO or Oslo libraries (openstack*/* repos on gerrit) would happen on openstack-dev. This will allow easier filtering and prioritization; OpenStack developers interested in tracking promising stackforge projects would subscribe to both lists. That will not solve all issues. We should also collectively make sure that *usage questions are re-routed* to the openstack general mailing-list, where they belong. Too many people still answer off-topic questions here on openstack-dev, which encourages people to be off-topic in the future (traffic on the openstack general ML has been mostly stable, with only 868 posts in October). With those actions, I hope that traffic on openstack-dev would drop back to the 1000-1500 range, which would be more manageable for everyone. Thoughts ? -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
Julien Danjou wrote: On Thu, Nov 14 2013, Thierry Carrez wrote: Thoughts ? I agree on the need to split, the traffic is getting huge. As I'd have to subscribe to both openstack-dev and stackforge-dev, that would not help me personally, but I think it can be an easy and first step. Personally I would also subscribe to both, but I would not parse them with the exact same level of attention -- having them land in two separate folders would certainly help me. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
On 11/14/2013 08:12 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Hi everyone, I think that we have recently reached critical mass for the openstack-dev mailing-list, with 2267 messages posted in October, and November well on its way to pass 2000 again. Some of those are just off-topic (and I've been regularly fighting against them) but most of them are just about us covering an ever-increasing scope, stretching the definition of what we include in openstack development. Therefore I'd like to propose a split between two lists: *openstack-dev*: Discussions on future development for OpenStack official projects *stackforge-dev*: Discussions on development for stackforge-hosted projects Non-official OpenStack-related projects would get discussed in stackforge-dev (or any other list of their preference), while openstack-dev would be focused on openstack official programs (including incubated integrated projects). +1 -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
On 14/11/13 14:12 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: Hi everyone, I think that we have recently reached critical mass for the openstack-dev mailing-list, with 2267 messages posted in October, and November well on its way to pass 2000 again. Some of those are just off-topic (and I've been regularly fighting against them) but most of them are just about us covering an ever-increasing scope, stretching the definition of what we include in openstack development. Therefore I'd like to propose a split between two lists: *openstack-dev*: Discussions on future development for OpenStack official projects *stackforge-dev*: Discussions on development for stackforge-hosted projects Non-official OpenStack-related projects would get discussed in stackforge-dev (or any other list of their preference), while openstack-dev would be focused on openstack official programs (including incubated integrated projects). That means discussion about Solum, Mistral, Congress or Murano (stackforge/* repos in gerrit) would now live on stackforge-dev. Discussions about Glance, TripleO or Oslo libraries (openstack*/* repos on gerrit) would happen on openstack-dev. This will allow easier filtering and prioritization; OpenStack developers interested in tracking promising stackforge projects would subscribe to both lists. That will not solve all issues. We should also collectively make sure that *usage questions are re-routed* to the openstack general mailing-list, where they belong. Too many people still answer off-topic questions here on openstack-dev, which encourages people to be off-topic in the future (traffic on the openstack general ML has been mostly stable, with only 868 posts in October). With those actions, I hope that traffic on openstack-dev would drop back to the 1000-1500 range, which would be more manageable for everyone. Thoughts ? +1 I'll most likely subscribe to both but I still think splitting them is the way to go. Cheers, FF -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
++ On 11/14/2013 08:37 AM, m...@openstack.org wrote: This would also have the added benefit of reducing the times people conflate related open source projects from stackforge with OpenStack itself. Having related oss discussions on a list called OpenStack-Dev may certainly have given the wrong impression to the casual observer. On Nov 14, 2013 7:12 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote: Hi everyone, I think that we have recently reached critical mass for the openstack-dev mailing-list, with 2267 messages posted in October, and November well on its way to pass 2000 again. Some of those are just off-topic (and I've been regularly fighting against them) but most of them are just about us covering an ever-increasing scope, stretching the definition of what we include in openstack development. Therefore I'd like to propose a split between two lists: *openstack-dev*: Discussions on future development for OpenStack official projects *stackforge-dev*: Discussions on development for stackforge-hosted projects Non-official OpenStack-related projects would get discussed in stackforge-dev (or any other list of their preference), while openstack-dev would be focused on openstack official programs (including incubated integrated projects). That means discussion about Solum, Mistral, Congress or Murano (stackforge/* repos in gerrit) would now live on stackforge-dev. Discussions about Glance, TripleO or Oslo libraries (openstack*/* repos on gerrit) would happen on openstack-dev. This will allow easier filtering and prioritization; OpenStack developers interested in tracking promising stackforge projects would subscribe to both lists. That will not solve all issues. We should also collectively make sure that *usage questions are re-routed* to the openstack general mailing-list, where they belong. Too many people still answer off-topic questions here on openstack-dev, which encourages people to be off-topic in the future (traffic on the openstack general ML has been mostly stable, with only 868 posts in October). With those actions, I hope that traffic on openstack-dev would drop back to the 1000-1500 range, which would be more manageable for everyone. Thoughts ? -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:12 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.orgwrote: Hi everyone, I think that we have recently reached critical mass for the openstack-dev mailing-list, with 2267 messages posted in October, and November well on its way to pass 2000 again. Some of those are just off-topic (and I've been regularly fighting against them) but most of them are just about us covering an ever-increasing scope, stretching the definition of what we include in openstack development. Therefore I'd like to propose a split between two lists: *openstack-dev*: Discussions on future development for OpenStack official projects *stackforge-dev*: Discussions on development for stackforge-hosted projects Non-official OpenStack-related projects would get discussed in stackforge-dev (or any other list of their preference), while openstack-dev would be focused on openstack official programs (including incubated integrated projects). That means discussion about Solum, Mistral, Congress or Murano (stackforge/* repos in gerrit) would now live on stackforge-dev. Discussions about Glance, TripleO or Oslo libraries (openstack*/* repos on gerrit) would happen on openstack-dev. This will allow easier filtering and prioritization; OpenStack developers interested in tracking promising stackforge projects would subscribe to both lists. That will not solve all issues. We should also collectively make sure that *usage questions are re-routed* to the openstack general mailing-list, where they belong. Too many people still answer off-topic questions here on openstack-dev, which encourages people to be off-topic in the future (traffic on the openstack general ML has been mostly stable, with only 868 posts in October). With those actions, I hope that traffic on openstack-dev would drop back to the 1000-1500 range, which would be more manageable for everyone. Thoughts ? Sounds good. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Anne Gentle annegen...@justwriteclick.com ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
+1, agreed. Personally, I’ll subscribe to both lists but I think it really could help to prioritize emails. Sincerely yours, Sergey Lukjanov Savanna Technical Lead Mirantis Inc. On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:12 PM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote: Hi everyone, I think that we have recently reached critical mass for the openstack-dev mailing-list, with 2267 messages posted in October, and November well on its way to pass 2000 again. Some of those are just off-topic (and I've been regularly fighting against them) but most of them are just about us covering an ever-increasing scope, stretching the definition of what we include in openstack development. Therefore I'd like to propose a split between two lists: *openstack-dev*: Discussions on future development for OpenStack official projects *stackforge-dev*: Discussions on development for stackforge-hosted projects Non-official OpenStack-related projects would get discussed in stackforge-dev (or any other list of their preference), while openstack-dev would be focused on openstack official programs (including incubated integrated projects). That means discussion about Solum, Mistral, Congress or Murano (stackforge/* repos in gerrit) would now live on stackforge-dev. Discussions about Glance, TripleO or Oslo libraries (openstack*/* repos on gerrit) would happen on openstack-dev. This will allow easier filtering and prioritization; OpenStack developers interested in tracking promising stackforge projects would subscribe to both lists. That will not solve all issues. We should also collectively make sure that *usage questions are re-routed* to the openstack general mailing-list, where they belong. Too many people still answer off-topic questions here on openstack-dev, which encourages people to be off-topic in the future (traffic on the openstack general ML has been mostly stable, with only 868 posts in October). With those actions, I hope that traffic on openstack-dev would drop back to the 1000-1500 range, which would be more manageable for everyone. Thoughts ? -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Julien Danjou jul...@danjou.info wrote: Other suggestion: we could stop posting meeting reminders to -dev (I know, I'm guilty of it) and only post something if the meeting time changes, or if the weekly meeting is canceled for whatever reason. Good suggestion. Or this can be moved to the announcement list? Chmouel. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
Good idea. -romain ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
On Nov 14, 2013 5:16 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote: Hi everyone, I think that we have recently reached critical mass for the openstack-dev mailing-list, with 2267 messages posted in October, and November well on its way to pass 2000 again. Some of those are just off-topic (and I've been regularly fighting against them) but most of them are just about us covering an ever-increasing scope, stretching the definition of what we include in openstack development. Therefore I'd like to propose a split between two lists: *openstack-dev*: Discussions on future development for OpenStack official projects *stackforge-dev*: Discussions on development for stackforge-hosted projects Non-official OpenStack-related projects would get discussed in stackforge-dev (or any other list of their preference), while openstack-dev would be focused on openstack official programs (including incubated integrated projects). That means discussion about Solum, Mistral, Congress or Murano (stackforge/* repos in gerrit) would now live on stackforge-dev. Discussions about Glance, TripleO or Oslo libraries (openstack*/* repos on gerrit) would happen on openstack-dev. This will allow easier filtering and prioritization; OpenStack developers interested in tracking promising stackforge projects would subscribe to both lists. That will not solve all issues. We should also collectively make sure that *usage questions are re-routed* to the openstack general mailing-list, where they belong. Too many people still answer off-topic questions here on openstack-dev, which encourages people to be off-topic in the future (traffic on the openstack general ML has been mostly stable, with only 868 posts in October). With those actions, I hope that traffic on openstack-dev would drop back to the 1000-1500 range, which would be more manageable for everyone. Thoughts ? ++ How soon can we do this? -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
On 11/14/2013 08:21 AM, Julien Danjou wrote: On Thu, Nov 14 2013, Thierry Carrez wrote: Thoughts ? I agree on the need to split, the traffic is getting huge. As I'd have to subscribe to both openstack-dev and stackforge-dev, that would not help me personally, but I think it can be an easy and first step. I don't think it's worth the bother. openstack-dev would still receive most of the traffic. Once you add back the traffic from people cross-posting, posting to the wrong list, yelling at people cross-posting or posting to the wrong list, etc. I'd expect openstack-dev's traffic to stay about the same. It'll just be one more list for most of us to subscribe to. The thing that would help with message volume would be splitting openstack-dev by subproject. (Except for those who would need to follow most of the projects, who would still get just as much mail plus the extra noise from people posting wrong.) -- David Ripton Red Hat drip...@redhat.com ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
On 2013-11-14 14:12:55 +0100 (+0100), Thierry Carrez wrote: [...] I'd like to propose a split between two lists: *openstack-dev*: Discussions on future development for OpenStack official projects *stackforge-dev*: Discussions on development for stackforge-hosted projects [...] Consider this my vote in favor: https://review.openstack.org/56432 (though I'd love if someone would step forward to be the list admin for it instead of me!) -- Jeremy Stanley ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
On 11/14/2013 09:03 AM, David Ripton wrote: I don't think it's worth the bother. openstack-dev would still receive most of the traffic. Once you add back the traffic from people cross-posting, posting to the wrong list, yelling at people cross-posting or posting to the wrong list, etc. I'd expect openstack-dev's traffic to stay about the same. It'll just be one more list for most of us to subscribe to. I think you're right. Given the amount of people that replied saying that they would subscribe to both lists anyway I think we should think about this a bit more. Since we are getting very good at marking subject lines with explicit topics, would it make sense to suggest people to filter stackforge and related projects based on subjects? The thing that would help with message volume would be splitting openstack-dev by subproject. We already have a mechanism in place with mailman topics and, despite the limitations of mailman, I think they did a pretty good job at teaching people to add a tag to the subject line. I think that's a pretty solid way to filter messages to this list. I am concerned a lot about off topic traffic though. I think we have to be a lot more strict and redirect questions that are not about the *future* of OpenStack development to the General list or Ask OpenStack. /stef -- Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:19 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.orgwrote: Thierry Carrez wrote: [...] That will not solve all issues. We should also collectively make sure that *usage questions are re-routed* to the openstack general mailing-list, where they belong. Too many people still answer off-topic questions here on openstack-dev, which encourages people to be off-topic in the future (traffic on the openstack general ML has been mostly stable, with only 868 posts in October). With those actions, I hope that traffic on openstack-dev would drop back to the 1000-1500 range, which would be more manageable for everyone. Other suggestion: we could stop posting meeting reminders to -dev (I know, I'm guilty of it) and only post something if the meeting time changes, or if the weekly meeting is canceled for whatever reason. It seems excessive, I agree. But if your meeting time bounces on a biweekly schedule to accommodate multiple timezones, I think its quite necessary. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2013-11-14 05:12:55 -0800: Hi everyone, I think that we have recently reached critical mass for the openstack-dev mailing-list, with 2267 messages posted in October, and November well on its way to pass 2000 again. Some of those are just off-topic (and I've been regularly fighting against them) but most of them are just about us covering an ever-increasing scope, stretching the definition of what we include in openstack development. Therefore I'd like to propose a split between two lists: *openstack-dev*: Discussions on future development for OpenStack official projects *stackforge-dev*: Discussions on development for stackforge-hosted projects Non-official OpenStack-related projects would get discussed in stackforge-dev (or any other list of their preference), while openstack-dev would be focused on openstack official programs (including incubated integrated projects). That means discussion about Solum, Mistral, Congress or Murano (stackforge/* repos in gerrit) would now live on stackforge-dev. Discussions about Glance, TripleO or Oslo libraries (openstack*/* repos on gerrit) would happen on openstack-dev. This will allow easier filtering and prioritization; OpenStack developers interested in tracking promising stackforge projects would subscribe to both lists. That will not solve all issues. We should also collectively make sure that *usage questions are re-routed* to the openstack general mailing-list, where they belong. Too many people still answer off-topic questions here on openstack-dev, which encourages people to be off-topic in the future (traffic on the openstack general ML has been mostly stable, with only 868 posts in October). With those actions, I hope that traffic on openstack-dev would drop back to the 1000-1500 range, which would be more manageable for everyone. Allow me an analogy if you will: Consider a burgeoning city. There are people who have been around a long time. Some are politicians, some work for the city, some are just good citizens. These people see newcomers in the commons and greet them with open arms. Those who have only been around a while see those and see that this is a city where new people are welcome, and they do the same as the old timers, welcoming new residents and visitors alike, and they also feel even more welcome than before they noticed that. Though newcomers must wait a while and gain the trust of the old-timers to call themselves citizens, they are already encouraged to participate in discussions at every level and to organize themselves in the same way as the old-timers. Now consider a different city. Things are quiet in the commons. Newcomers are greeted with a sign. Newcomers over there-. That part of town is unknown to the rest of the world. It has less infrastructure. It also has very little representation in the government. The line is very clear between the citizens and the newcomers. When the newcomers want to become full citizens, they have to go before a council of old-timers, some of whom have specifically decided to ignore newcomers until this moment. Now, choose which city will grow faster and produce more innovation. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Stefano Maffulli stef...@openstack.orgwrote: On 11/14/2013 09:03 AM, David Ripton wrote: I don't think it's worth the bother. openstack-dev would still receive most of the traffic. Once you add back the traffic from people cross-posting, posting to the wrong list, yelling at people cross-posting or posting to the wrong list, etc. I'd expect openstack-dev's traffic to stay about the same. It'll just be one more list for most of us to subscribe to. I think you're right. Given the amount of people that replied saying that they would subscribe to both lists anyway I think we should think about this a bit more. FWIW I would not subscribe to both, while I am interested in watching the progress of stackforge projects there are only so many hours in the day. Since we are getting very good at marking subject lines with explicit topics, would it make sense to suggest people to filter stackforge and related projects based on subjects? This may be a silly question, but what is the best way to filter out stackforge and related projects? Should I make a local filter and whitelist all integrated projects? The thing that would help with message volume would be splitting openstack-dev by subproject. We already have a mechanism in place with mailman topics and, despite the limitations of mailman, I think they did a pretty good job at teaching people to add a tag to the subject line. I think that's a pretty solid way to filter messages to this list. I am concerned a lot about off topic traffic though. I think we have to be a lot more strict and redirect questions that are not about the *future* of OpenStack development to the General list or Ask OpenStack. +1, to being stricter about this. Did you just volunteer to be the off topic czar? /stef -- Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
On 11/14/2013 02:46 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: Allow me an analogy if you will: Consider a burgeoning city. There are people who have been around a long time. Some are politicians, some work for the city, some are just good citizens. These people see newcomers in the commons and greet them with open arms. Those who have only been around a while see those and see that this is a city where new people are welcome, and they do the same as the old timers, welcoming new residents and visitors alike, and they also feel even more welcome than before they noticed that. Though newcomers must wait a while and gain the trust of the old-timers to call themselves citizens, they are already encouraged to participate in discussions at every level and to organize themselves in the same way as the old-timers. Now consider a different city. Things are quiet in the commons. Newcomers are greeted with a sign. Newcomers over there-. That part of town is unknown to the rest of the world. It has less infrastructure. It also has very little representation in the government. The line is very clear between the citizens and the newcomers. When the newcomers want to become full citizens, they have to go before a council of old-timers, some of whom have specifically decided to ignore newcomers until this moment. Now, choose which city will grow faster and produce more innovation. You do have the best stories. Here is what I am feeling. I wonder what percentage of posts from stackforge projects are posts dealing with development details and what percentage of the posts are marketing? I have no stomach for the marketing but no idea how to reduce its prevalance from the new projects. If the lists are split I don't have to have the marketing while consuming (or trying to consume) the news. So no solution, just my perspective. Thanks, Anita. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
On 11/14/2013 11:46 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: Now, choose which city will grow faster and produce more innovation. This is not about welcoming newcomers. It's about teaching newcomers the tools, habits, culture of an established community that keeps growing. If questions about usage need to be asked on the General list, that's where they need to go. Newcomers can be educated, nicely and productively, without compromising on the functions of each list. /stef -- Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
On 15/11/13 02:40, Chmouel Boudjnah wrote: On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Julien Danjou jul...@danjou.info mailto:jul...@danjou.info wrote: Other suggestion: we could stop posting meeting reminders to -dev (I know, I'm guilty of it) and only post something if the meeting time changes, or if the weekly meeting is canceled for whatever reason. Good suggestion. Or this can be moved to the announcement list? It's my impression that the announce list has a different purpose than such mundane things as weekly meeting reminders :) Announces about OpenStack new releases, stable releases and security advisories I'd think that based on the description (and in some sense how we've communicated it) that list would be quite low traffic - like 1-2 messages per month. However, do you think an devel-announce or meeting-announce list would be valuable? Regards, Tom ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
On 14/11/13 11:46 -0800, Clint Byrum wrote: Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2013-11-14 05:12:55 -0800: Hi everyone, I think that we have recently reached critical mass for the openstack-dev mailing-list, with 2267 messages posted in October, and November well on its way to pass 2000 again. Some of those are just off-topic (and I've been regularly fighting against them) but most of them are just about us covering an ever-increasing scope, stretching the definition of what we include in openstack development. Therefore I'd like to propose a split between two lists: *openstack-dev*: Discussions on future development for OpenStack official projects *stackforge-dev*: Discussions on development for stackforge-hosted projects Non-official OpenStack-related projects would get discussed in stackforge-dev (or any other list of their preference), while openstack-dev would be focused on openstack official programs (including incubated integrated projects). That means discussion about Solum, Mistral, Congress or Murano (stackforge/* repos in gerrit) would now live on stackforge-dev. Discussions about Glance, TripleO or Oslo libraries (openstack*/* repos on gerrit) would happen on openstack-dev. This will allow easier filtering and prioritization; OpenStack developers interested in tracking promising stackforge projects would subscribe to both lists. That will not solve all issues. We should also collectively make sure that *usage questions are re-routed* to the openstack general mailing-list, where they belong. Too many people still answer off-topic questions here on openstack-dev, which encourages people to be off-topic in the future (traffic on the openstack general ML has been mostly stable, with only 868 posts in October). With those actions, I hope that traffic on openstack-dev would drop back to the 1000-1500 range, which would be more manageable for everyone. Allow me an analogy if you will: Consider a burgeoning city. There are people who have been around a long time. Some are politicians, some work for the city, some are just good citizens. These people see newcomers in the commons and greet them with open arms. Those who have only been around a while see those and see that this is a city where new people are welcome, and they do the same as the old timers, welcoming new residents and visitors alike, and they also feel even more welcome than before they noticed that. Though newcomers must wait a while and gain the trust of the old-timers to call themselves citizens, they are already encouraged to participate in discussions at every level and to organize themselves in the same way as the old-timers. Now consider a different city. Things are quiet in the commons. Newcomers are greeted with a sign. Newcomers over there-. That part of town is unknown to the rest of the world. It has less infrastructure. It also has very little representation in the government. The line is very clear between the citizens and the newcomers. When the newcomers want to become full citizens, they have to go before a council of old-timers, some of whom have specifically decided to ignore newcomers until this moment. Now, choose which city will grow faster and produce more innovation. I completely agree with this, lets stick to one list. -Angus ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Split of the openstack-dev list
On 15 Nov 2013, at 02:46, Clint Byrum cl...@fewbar.com wrote: Allow me an analogy if you will: Consider a burgeoning city. There are people who have been around a long time. Some are politicians, some work for the city, some are just good citizens. These people see newcomers in the commons and greet them with open arms. Those who have only been around a while see those and see that this is a city where new people are welcome, and they do the same as the old timers, welcoming new residents and visitors alike, and they also feel even more welcome than before they noticed that. Though newcomers must wait a while and gain the trust of the old-timers to call themselves citizens, they are already encouraged to participate in discussions at every level and to organize themselves in the same way as the old-timers. Now consider a different city. Things are quiet in the commons. Newcomers are greeted with a sign. Newcomers over there-. That part of town is unknown to the rest of the world. It has less infrastructure. It also has very little representation in the government. The line is very clear between the citizens and the newcomers. When the newcomers want to become full citizens, they have to go before a council of old-timers, some of whom have specifically decided to ignore newcomers until this moment. Now, choose which city will grow faster and produce more innovation. This is great! Totally agree.___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev