12:25 p.m.
Hi all!
Find below a proposal for a mailing list reorganization the board asked
me to work on. It can also be found in the wiki at
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThorstenLeemhuis/MailingListReorganization
and until now was only discussed slightly on the semi-private on
fedora-advisory-board. This is the first public discussion. Happy flamefest!
CU
thl
P.S.: We want to create the fedora-qa list (without the "-list" postfix
-- see the end of the document) quite soon (early next week!). If you
really dislike that part yell *now*. The other stuff will at least get a
second public discussion.
###############################
= Mailing list reorganization =
A lot of people yelled "there are to many mailing lists; that is
contra-productive and leads to a lot of confusion" (this is the short
explanation without all the boring details). Thus the idea came up to
revisit the Fedora mailing lists that got created in the past years
since Fedora was born and do some adjustments. That means mainly: shut
some down and adjust the usage model of some others. That's needed in
parts for the Core and Extras merge in any case. This will be a really
complex task and we won't make everybody happy with it, but we hope to
improve the situations.
The Fedora Board asked me, ThorstenLeemhuis (thl), to drive this task.
You can find my proposal below, comments appreciated. Feel free to write
a counter proposal if you think I did stuff (totally) wrong or if you
think I ignored your comments (I read them all, but as I wrote: we can't
make everyone happy -- but I'm trying my best to find a compromise thats
better that what we have today and is acceptable for most of us).
----
= Main end Goal =
The details how this goal is going to achieved can be found below, but
here is a quick summary for those that don#t care about the details.
The other goal is to get rid of those lists:
* fedora-devel-list
* fedora-maintainers
* fedora-extras-list
* fedora-test-list
* fedora-triage-list
* fedora-extras-commits
* fedora-desktop-list
* fedora-extras-steering
* fedora-dsco-list
In parallel we create some new:
* fedora-devel -- For devel discussion. The "old" fedora-devel-list
became quite noise and we want to avoid that with the new list. Thus the
plan is to restrict it to well known open-source or project contributors
and make it moderated for the rest of the world. Support questions
regarding devel stuff are off topic here.
* fedora-devel-discuss -- We need an open devel list for users as
fedora-devel is restricted. Support questions regarding devel stuff are
on topic here, too.
* fedora-qa -- for wwoods and the QA group
* fedora-project -- for discussions about the project as a whole that
in the past often happend on the moderated/semi-closed
fedora-advisory-board list (that will stay for now and hopefully gets
removed in the long term).
= Details how to achieve that end-goal =
Some lists get renamed (users thus don't have to care about
re-subscribing) and sone get closed.
== Shut down ==
Meaning: Send a EOL message with some informations to the list and
disallow further postings. Archieves remain accessible. Users get
pointed to the new lists.
=== fedora-extras-list ===
Well, the "Core packages gets merged into the Extras framework" is
official. The name "Extras" get obsolete by that and thus this list
becomes obsolete. Users get pointed to two different lists instead:
* topics regarding maintaining packages in the repo go to fedora-devel
* questions regarding packaging and the guidlines around it shall be
send to fedora-packaging in the future
=== fedora-test-list ===
A lot of people never got the difference between fedora-devel and
fedora-test list and ask users support questions on fedora-devel. One of
the reasons for this is that it was not obvious what "testing" means.
Another reason: we answered those users question on fedora-devel, even
if they were not on topic (and thus users asked again and again). And
the topics for -devel and -test are to similar; sometimes the same
things get discussed in parallel on both lists. Users get pointed to
fedora-devel-discuss instead.
=== fedora-triage-list ===
Not used much anymore. Users ge pointed to fedora-qa-list instead (see
below).
=== fedora-extras-commits ===
No difference between core and extras anymore. Send the stuff to
fedora-cvs-commits in the future. (see below)
=== fedora-extras-steering ===
No FESCo anymore in the future, no private list for it anymore. An new
list will be create for the FESCo successor when that got decided.
=== fedora-desktop-list ===
Not much traffic, seems the project has not much need for a dedicated
list atm. If that changes again in the future create
fedora-devel-desktop, to make its usage more obvious.
=== fedora-dsco-list ===
Not much traffic and it seems the Fedora Documentation Steering
Committee agreeds to close this list.
----
== Create ==
We need some new lists, too.
=== fedora-qa ===
Create a fedora-qa to be used by wwoods efforts and his recruits. Will
be created quite soon, probably before this discussion is finished,
because the QA group asked for it quite some time ago already. Will get
a seperate "topic" on the list where the qa-reports will get send; users
then can subscribe to the qa-list, but can choose if they want to get
the automatic reports..
=== fedora-project ===
We until now have no real list where Ambassadors, packagers,
programmers, art-people and other contributors can talk to each other
about general stuff that's important to the project as a whole without
getting lost in the noise or scared away with "this is off topic on this
list" calls. fedora-advisory-board somehow was this list until now in
parts, but it's moderated and thus even some project contributors that
were not subscribed feel excluded (bad).
Summaries from the project meetings (Ambassadors, Infrastructure, FESCo
successor) shall get send to the list so people know what's going on in
the project as a whole.
=== fedora-maintainers-announce ===
Created already, but not used until now. This is not a real mailing list
for discussion, it's rather meant as a way to get really important
information (policy changes, announcements for mass rebuilds, ...) out
to all maintainers -- e.g. low traffic, normally less then 3-5 mails a
months. The plan is to subscribe users semi-automatically from the
accounts system to make sure we reach everyone.
Some people question the use of this list; they want people subscribed
to fedora-maintainers instead. But important informations can get lost
there in the noise easily, and that would be bad. And some of our
maintainers (e.g. upstream maintainers that co-maintain the fedora
package) are not interested in all those discussions that happened on
fedora-maintainers in the past.
Reply-to of this list will be set to fedora-devel; that list will also
get subscribed to fedora-maintainers-announce. Users can't unsubscribe
manually from fedora-maintainers-announce list -- being on it is
mandatory for all package contributors.
----
== Change policy ==
=== fedora-advisory-board ===
The list remains for now, but we want to move most of the discussion
into the wider public. fedora-project should thus be used for most of
the stuff that got discussed on fedora-advisory-board in the past. But
the advisory-list will remain for the purpose it was created for: a
communication channel between important project contributors. We'll
close it later if we notice that this is not needed anymore (that what
some people hope)
=== fedora-cvs-commits ===
All commits should go here, but separated into topics (web, docs, F7,
devel, ...), similar how we do it for how we do for
fedora-packaging-announce
----
== Rename ==
=== fedora-devel-list to fedora-devel-discuss ===
fedora-devel-discuss shall to a major part replace fedora-test-list an
fedora-devel. Users can help each other here (and developers should
keep any eye on it his list, too) if they have problems with running
development or testing-channels. They can also discuss Fedora
development there freely.
=== fedora-maintainers to fedora-devel ===
Rename to fedora-devel. Free to post for all fedora contributors (being
in ambassadors, mentors, packagers, ...). Moderated for the rest of the
world (we need a whole team of moderators for it). Be liberal and allow
good-guys to post without being moderated, even if they are no
fedora-contributors; that includes:
* people that are well know and active in open-source land somewhere
* people who work on upstream apps we package
* people that have shown to be constructive after their posts got
moderated for a while
Enforce the devel topics and never ever answer support questions on that
list -> those are on topic for fedora-devel-users.
=== fedora-laptop-list ===
Rename to fedora-hardware. Some people suggested to get rid of this
completely, but having a dedicated list for hardware issues might be
acceptable.
----
== Not sure ==
There are some list where I'm not sure if we still need them and/or need
to adjust their policy.
=== fedora-list ===
This is mostly a list where users help he other. fedora-users would thus
be a proper name that would make its use obvious.
=== Others ===
Some people questioned the needs for these lists.
* fedora-games-list
* fedora-r-devel-list
* fedora-art
* fedora-xen
* fedora-websites
Ask the list-maintainers if separate lists really make sense for these
topics. fedora-games-list for example
----
== Miscellaneous ==
=== Mailman guidelines ===
While at it let's define a standard look-and-feel for mailing lists,
too. (FIXME: some mailman experts around? Is this sane?). Mailing list
admins are strongly encouraged to follow this guidelines, but they don't
have to if there are good reason for it (no, "I don't like it" is not a
good reason!). Suggested setting (can all be found on the first mailman
settings page)
* the reply-to should not be modified by mailman (first_strip_reply_to
= no)
* the reply-to should point to the list (reply_goes_to_list = this list)
* no explicit Reply-to-Address (reply_to_address = <empty> )
* no tagging (subject_prefix = <empty> )
=== Legacy ===
Jesse will close fedora-legacy and fedora-legacy-announce in the near
future.
=== To -list or not to list ===
Some of our mailing lists have the "-list" postfix, other not. I think
all new lists should be created without it.
=== rawhide reports ===
We create another channel in fedora-package-announce where those kind of
reports get mailed to. Don't send them to any other lists.
Side note: A channel for the important packages might be helpful,
because the reports will get quite long in the future after the extras
and core merge. How about a channel that lists only changes in packages
that are part of our most important spins Gnome, KDE and Server?
== Notes ==
Ubuntu has similar problems; they splitted ubuntu-devel into
ubuntu-devel and ubuntu-devel-discuss:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2006-December/023022.html
EOF
1:20 p.m.
Le mercredi 10 janvier 2007 à 19:25 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis a écrit :
=== To -list or not to list ===
Some of our mailing lists have the "-list" postfix, other not. I think
all new lists should be created without it.
Please make sure every Fedora list follow the same pattern. It makes
procmail/filter recipes that much easier to write/maintain.
That includes Return-Path, List-Id, X-loop, X-BeenThere… headers
Do not hesitate to rename old lists if needed – if we do a reorg let's
not do it half-way.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
1:22 p.m.
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le mercredi 10 janvier 2007 à 19:25 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis a écrit
:
> === To -list or not to list ===
>
> Some of our mailing lists have the "-list" postfix, other not. I think
> all new lists should be created without it.
Please make sure every Fedora list follow the same pattern. It makes
procmail/filter recipes that much easier to write/maintain.
That includes Return-Path, List-Id, X-loop, X-BeenThere… headers
Do not hesitate to rename old lists if needed – if we do a reorg let's
not do it half-way.
Its even mentioned clearly in the wiki link that Thorsten posted. Do
read it completely first.
Rahul
1:46 p.m.
Le jeudi 11 janvier 2007 à 00:52 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
Its even mentioned clearly in the wiki link that Thorsten posted. Do
read it completely first.
Not to this level of detail.
And I care about this level of detail, because that's where we have
subtle variations right now.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
1:48 p.m.
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 20:46 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le jeudi 11 janvier 2007 à 00:52 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
> Its even mentioned clearly in the wiki link that Thorsten posted. Do
> read it completely first.
Not to this level of detail.
And I care about this level of detail, because that's where we have
subtle variations right now.
You realize that it'll break any existing filters if we go off renaming
things right?
josh
1:56 p.m.
On Wednesday 10 January 2007 14:48, Josh Boyer wrote:
> Not to this level of detail.
> And I care about this level of detail, because that's where we have
> subtle variations right now.
You realize that it'll break any existing filters if we go off renaming
things right?
Not to mention that one can't really easily "rename" a list. Most often it
is
close one list, open a new one, mass subscribe. Its that last step that gets
our IS in a tiff, as mass subscribing without end user consent is tatamount
to spam, and we REALLY don't want to be a spam company.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
3:20 a.m.
On 10 Jan 2007, at 19:56, Jesse Keating wrote:
Not to mention that one can't really easily "rename" a
list. Most
often it is
close one list, open a new one, mass subscribe. Its that last step
that gets
our IS in a tiff, as mass subscribing without end user consent is
tatamount
to spam, and we REALLY don't want to be a spam company.
Send out (Mailman) invites rather than subscribing people. Has the
advantage of doing a list prune at the same time, and the target
audience ought to be up to handling the idea.
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham(a)InTechnology.co.uk ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
8:48 a.m.
Nigel Metheringham schrieb:
On 10 Jan 2007, at 19:56, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Not to mention that one can't really easily "rename" a list.
http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq04.070.htp
sound not to hard IMHO. And I think such a renaming doesn't make us a
spam company if it's announced properly in advance *and* if that list is
the only direct successor for the old list.
Other opinions?
> Most
> often it is
> close one list, open a new one, mass subscribe. Its that last step
> that gets
> our IS in a tiff, as mass subscribing without end user consent is
> tatamount
> to spam, and we REALLY don't want to be a spam company.
Send out (Mailman) invites rather than subscribing people. Has the
advantage of doing a list prune at the same time, and the target
audience ought to be up to handling the idea.
Would people prefer that over a rename?
BTW, we'll probably use the invite feature for lists that have no direct
successor.
CU
thl
2:16 p.m.
Le mercredi 10 janvier 2007 à 13:48 -0600, Josh Boyer a écrit :
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 20:46 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le jeudi 11 janvier 2007 à 00:52 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
>
> > Its even mentioned clearly in the wiki link that Thorsten posted. Do
> > read it completely first.
>
> Not to this level of detail.
> And I care about this level of detail, because that's where we have
> subtle variations right now.
You realize that it'll break any existing filters if we go off renaming
things right?
The other renamings will break filters anyway. There's only one thing
worse than incompatible changes — halfway-incompatible changes.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
8:42 a.m.
Nicolas Mailhot schrieb:
Le mercredi 10 janvier 2007 à 13:48 -0600, Josh Boyer a écrit :
> On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 20:46 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>> Le jeudi 11 janvier 2007 à 00:52 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
>>> Its even mentioned clearly in the wiki link that Thorsten posted. Do
>>> read it completely first.
>> Not to this level of detail.
>> And I care about this level of detail, because that's where we have
>> subtle variations right now.
> You realize that it'll break any existing filters if we go off renaming
> things right?
The other renamings will break filters anyway. There's only one thing
worse than incompatible changes — halfway-incompatible changes.
Well, there are so many lists with "-list" postfix. Renaming all of them
just for the sake of being consistent with all those others that don't
have a "list" postfix is IMHO not worth the trouble for the users.
CU
thl
9:01 a.m.
Le Jeu 11 janvier 2007 15:42, Thorsten Leemhuis a écrit :
Nicolas Mailhot schrieb:
> Le mercredi 10 janvier 2007 à 13:48 -0600, Josh Boyer a écrit :
>> On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 20:46 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>>> Le jeudi 11 janvier 2007 à 00:52 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
>>>> Its even mentioned clearly in the wiki link that Thorsten posted. Do
>>>> read it completely first.
>>> Not to this level of detail.
>>> And I care about this level of detail, because that's where we have
>>> subtle variations right now.
>> You realize that it'll break any existing filters if we go off renaming
>> things right?
> The other renamings will break filters anyway. There's only one thing
> worse than incompatible changes — halfway-incompatible changes.
Well, there are so many lists with "-list" postfix. Renaming all of them
just for the sake of being consistent with all those others that don't
have a "list" postfix is IMHO not worth the trouble for the users.
It is worth the trouble. And I write it as someone with more -list than
non-list subscriptions, who will have a merry time during the change. I'll
gladly sacrifice my setup to the consistency altar.
If you want to go the "minimum changes" route I'll insist to have all
lists grow a -list postfix, non-postfixed lists are the oddball here ;)
Please do it right, or don't do it at all.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
9:10 a.m.
Nicolas Mailhot schrieb:
Le Jeu 11 janvier 2007 15:42, Thorsten Leemhuis a écrit :
> Nicolas Mailhot schrieb:
>> Le mercredi 10 janvier 2007 à 13:48 -0600, Josh Boyer a écrit :
>>> On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 20:46 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>>>> Le jeudi 11 janvier 2007 à 00:52 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
>>>>> Its even mentioned clearly in the wiki link that Thorsten posted. Do
>>>>> read it completely first.
>>>> Not to this level of detail.
>>>> And I care about this level of detail, because that's where we have
>>>> subtle variations right now.
>>> You realize that it'll break any existing filters if we go off renaming
>>> things right?
>> The other renamings will break filters anyway. There's only one thing
>> worse than incompatible changes — halfway-incompatible changes.
> Well, there are so many lists with "-list" postfix. Renaming all of them
> just for the sake of being consistent with all those others that don't
> have a "list" postfix is IMHO not worth the trouble for the users.
It is worth the trouble.
Do others agree with that? (Send me private yes/no if you don't want to
spam the list with "mee, too"-mails !)
And I write it as someone with more -list than
non-list subscriptions, who will have a merry time during the change. I'll
gladly sacrifice my setup to the consistency altar.
If you want to go the "minimum changes" route I'll insist to have all
lists grow a -list postfix, non-postfixed lists are the oddball here ;)
I don't care much about to -list or not to -list, but having it
consistent might be good. I'm taking opinions on that, too (in private
or on the list).
CU
thl
3:26 p.m.
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora <at> leemhuis.info> writes:
* fedora-devel-discuss -- We need an open devel list for users as
fedora-devel is restricted. Support questions regarding devel stuff are
on topic here, too.
Fedora-devel-discuss list should be called fedora-devel-users. The name
devel-discuss would suggest that one discusses development issues on this list,
where in fact it is for development code users.
Regarding fedora-devel, the plan is:
Thus the plan is to restrict it to well known open-source or project
contributors and make it moderated for the rest of the world.
So, when a new person attempts to subscribe to this list (say, a Debian or ASF
developer), someone is going to check this person's FOSS credentials before
membership is accepted, right? How is this going to be organised and will there
be objective criteria for "well known"?
--
Bojan
2:48 a.m.
Bojan Smojver wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora <at> leemhuis.info> writes:
> Thus the plan is to restrict it to well known open-source or project
> contributors and make it moderated for the rest of the world.
So, when a new person attempts to subscribe to this list (say, a Debian or ASF
developer), someone is going to check this person's FOSS credentials before
membership is accepted, right? How is this going to be organised and will there
be objective criteria for "well known"?
Adding a restriction like this would be really bad, since a lot of users
are "worthy" of devel-status and can produce occasional patches or
propose/discuss stuff relevant for development, even though the don't
own a FOSS project?!?
This would effectively narrow the number of people who can (try to)
influence the project.
/Thomas
2:53 a.m.
Thomas M Steenholdt wrote:
Bojan Smojver wrote:
> Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora <at> leemhuis.info> writes:
>
>> Thus the plan is to restrict it to well known open-source or project
>> contributors and make it moderated for the rest of the world.
>
> So, when a new person attempts to subscribe to this list (say, a
> Debian or ASF
> developer), someone is going to check this person's FOSS credentials
> before
> membership is accepted, right? How is this going to be organised and
> will there
> be objective criteria for "well known"?
>
Adding a restriction like this would be really bad, since a lot of users
are "worthy" of devel-status and can produce occasional patches or
propose/discuss stuff relevant for development, even though the don't
own a FOSS project?!?
This would effectively narrow the number of people who can (try to)
influence the project.
/Thomas
Re-reading the original mail, I realized that I may have misunderstood
the "restriction"?!? Making posts from *the world* moderated is probably
not going to be a huge issue. As long as it's *possible* to subscribe
and post for everyone.
/Thomas
3:06 a.m.
Hi All!
I'll answer to this mail now, to some of others later.
On 11.01.2007 09:48, Thomas M Steenholdt wrote:
Bojan Smojver wrote:
> Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora <at> leemhuis.info> writes:
>> Thus the plan is to restrict it to well known open-source or project
>> contributors and make it moderated for the rest of the world.
> So, when a new person attempts to subscribe to this list (say, a Debian or ASF
> developer), someone is going to check this person's FOSS credentials before
> membership is accepted, right? How is this going to be organised and will there
> be objective criteria for "well known"?
Adding a restriction like this would be really bad,
That restriction mostly exists already in the form of
"fedora-maintainers". That is open only for project contributors that
discussed development stuff there in the past privately already. It got
created after some important developers said "there is to much noise by
non-contributors on fedora-devel". That's sad, but that the situation.
I'd like to improve that situation again and would like to open that
list (under a new name) wider again to all project and open source
contributors and *moderated* to everyone else, too.
since a lot of users
are "worthy" of devel-status and can produce occasional patches or
propose/discuss stuff relevant for development, even though the don't
own a FOSS project?!?
This would effectively narrow the number of people who can (try to)
influence the project.
Non-contributors can still post, but get moderated (if they showed to be
"good" the get allowed to post without moderation, too); and
fedora-devel-discuss remains totally open for this sort of discussions,
too.
The proposed solution is IMHO the best way to make both sides happy.
CU
thl
3:41 a.m.
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Non-contributors can still post, but get moderated (if they showed to be
"good" the get allowed to post without moderation, too); and
fedora-devel-discuss remains totally open for this sort of discussions,
too.
The proposed solution is IMHO the best way to make both sides happy.
This was the part I was missing the first time i read your proposal. I
agree that this is a good, working way to solve the problem.
/Thomas
3:12 a.m.
On 10.01.2007 22:26, Bojan Smojver wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora <at> leemhuis.info> writes:
> * fedora-devel-discuss -- We need an open devel list for users as
> fedora-devel is restricted. Support questions regarding devel stuff are
> on topic here, too.
Fedora-devel-discuss list should be called fedora-devel-users. The name
devel-discuss would suggest that one discusses development issues on this list,
where in fact it is for development code users.
In an earlier version of the proposal it was named fedora-devel-users.
I'm unsure myself what's the better name for the list.
I'd like to have some more feedback on this part. So, dear readers of
this mail, please send me a private mail (we don't need to spam the list
with it) with either "I prefer fedora-devel-discuss" or "I prefer
fedora-devel-users" in the subject (and optional: reasons for your
opinion in the body) and I'll collect the stuff and write a short
summary to the list.
CU
thl
3:55 p.m.
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 19:25 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
The other goal is to get rid of those lists:
* fedora-dsco-list
Still no, leave that list as-is, thanks. We'll let the next FDSCo
decide to keep or vaporize.
- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project
Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41
////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
8:55 a.m.
Karsten Wade schrieb:
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 19:25 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> The other goal is to get rid of those lists:
> * fedora-dsco-list
Still no, leave that list as-is, thanks. We'll let the next FDSCo
decide to keep or vaporize.
Sorry, removed it from the proposal. I was told it was mostly decided
already to get rid of it.
CU
thl
4:12 p.m.
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 19:25 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
=== fedora-dsco-list ===
Not much traffic and it seems the Fedora Documentation Steering
Committee agreeds to close this list.
Again, sorry about the confusion, we've put aside this issue until after
elections; if FDSCo decides to shut down the list, we'll take care of
the details.
=== fedora-project ===
+1 Beautiful idea.
=== fedora-cvs-commits ===
All commits should go here, but separated into topics (web, docs, F7,
devel, ...), similar how we do it for how we do for
fedora-packaging-announce
Hmm, interesting. This is going to increase mail traffic and new
contributor complexity, and to what advantage?
Right now there is fedora-docs-commits for all that goes into /cvs/docs,
and that is all that cvsdocs users are required to subscribe to. This
proposal increases CVS commit traffic to our mailboxes by 100-fold?
1000-fold?
With projects have a lower technical experience to get involved, such as
the Documentation Project, asking people to get on a firehose list
(fedora-cvs-commits) and customize a rule to only get the traffic
from /cvs/docs ... it seems like a step in the wrong direction, away
from making it easier and more pleasant to be a contributor.
Heck, I fear the websieve rule I have to figure out to get this work.
That's an hour of my time I'd like to spend elsewhere. :)
=== Others ===
Some people questioned the needs for these lists.
* fedora-websites
Maybe under a new name, but there is an implicit agreement that
Infrastructure /= Web developers. fedora-websites serves as the central
spot for the project that needs to formally come alive, i.e., Fedora Web
Team or something. Similar gang of people perhaps, but very different
scopes.
There are my spare nickels worth of thoughts,
- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project
Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41
////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
4:17 p.m.
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 14:12 -0800, Karsten Wade wrote:
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 19:25 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> === fedora-cvs-commits ===
>
> All commits should go here, but separated into topics (web, docs, F7,
> devel, ...), similar how we do it for how we do for
> fedora-packaging-announce
Hmm, interesting. This is going to increase mail traffic and new
contributor complexity, and to what advantage?
Right now there is fedora-docs-commits for all that goes into /cvs/docs,
and that is all that cvsdocs users are required to subscribe to. This
proposal increases CVS commit traffic to our mailboxes by 100-fold?
1000-fold?
With the topics support in mailman and using them, it becomes "subscribe
to fedora-cvs-commits and set your topic preference to Docs". And then
we ensure that docs commits are the ones with said topic set. So
there's no need for filtering except at subscription time.
Jeremy
10:47 p.m.
Jeremy Katz (katzj(a)redhat.com) said:
With the topics support in mailman and using them, it becomes
"subscribe
to fedora-cvs-commits and set your topic preference to Docs". And then
we ensure that docs commits are the ones with said topic set. So
there's no need for filtering except at subscription time.
However, I'm not sure I'd want to add that extra hurdle - right now,
you can do all the subscribing without ever visiting the web site -
with this, you *have* to go into the mailman interface.
Devils advocate - if we really want this, why wouldn't wiki changes fall
into this list, aside from the infrastructure not really allowing for it?
If nothing else, walling off the fire hose of package commits from
other commits would be nice.
Bill
9:05 a.m.
Bill Nottingham schrieb:
Jeremy Katz (katzj(a)redhat.com) said:
> With the topics support in mailman and using them, it becomes "subscribe
> to fedora-cvs-commits and set your topic preference to Docs". And then
> we ensure that docs commits are the ones with said topic set. So
> there's no need for filtering except at subscription time.
However, I'm not sure I'd want to add that extra hurdle - right now,
you can do all the subscribing without ever visiting the web site -
with this, you *have* to go into the mailman interface.
Devils advocate - if we really want this, why wouldn't wiki changes fall
into this list, aside from the infrastructure not really allowing for it?
If nothing else, walling off the fire hose of package commits from
other commits would be nice.
fedora-commits-packages and fedora-commits then?
CU
thl
9:57 a.m.
Thorsten Leemhuis (fedora(a)leemhuis.info) said:
> Devils advocate - if we really want this, why wouldn't wiki
changes fall
> into this list, aside from the infrastructure not really allowing for it?
>
> If nothing else, walling off the fire hose of package commits from
> other commits would be nice.
fedora-commits-packages and fedora-commits then?
Possibly. Actually, to bring up a relevant other point - one thing
we're planning with the SCM merge is that each maintainer will
*automatically* get commits mailed for their packages, outside
of the full commits list. This might make fedora-commits-packages
(or fedora-package-commits - that reads better to me) 'more'
optional.
Bill
12:41 p.m.
Bill Nottingham schrieb:
Thorsten Leemhuis (fedora(a)leemhuis.info) said:
>> Devils advocate - if we really want this, why wouldn't wiki changes fall
>> into this list, aside from the infrastructure not really allowing for it?
>> If nothing else, walling off the fire hose of package commits from
>> other commits would be nice.
> fedora-commits-packages and fedora-commits then?
Possibly. Actually, to bring up a relevant other point - one thing
we're planning with the SCM merge is that each maintainer will
*automatically* get commits mailed for their packages, outside
of the full commits list.
Yeah! Yes please please!
But, btw, why only maintainers? Why not let each and everyone subscribe
to the package of interest?
This might make fedora-commits-packages
(or fedora-package-commits - that reads better to me) 'more'
optional.
Agreed. Still some people might want it...
CU
thl
10:45 p.m.
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:25:09 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> wrote:
The other goal is to get rid of those lists:
Might as well kill fedora-patch-list too. It saw no uptake at all.
* fedora-devel -- For devel discussion. The "old"
fedora-devel-list
became quite noise and we want to avoid that with the new list. Thus the
plan is to restrict it to well known open-source or project contributors
and make it moderated for the rest of the world. Support questions
regarding devel stuff are off topic here.
I question the assertion behind this. Fedora-devel-list is rather
quiet, considering the size of the project.
* fedora-devel-discuss -- We need an open devel list for users as
fedora-devel is restricted. Support questions regarding devel stuff are
on topic here, too.
Very dubious idea, but ok.
My main problem with this proposal is that you're trying to recreate
the current system of fedora-maintainers and fedora-devel-list
with no change at all.
I've read the explanations in the renaming section, but they weren't
persuasive.
Notice that Ubuntu were different before, but now they copied our current
setup of fedora-maintainers and fedora-devel-list almost exactly, only
they named them differently.
=== fedora-cvs-commits ===
All commits should go here, but separated into topics (web, docs, F7,
devel, ...), similar how we do it for how we do for
fedora-packaging-announce
Detail: how is it going to be separated? I'd hate to see more
square brackets in subjects.
=== fedora-maintainers to fedora-devel ===
Rename to fedora-devel. Free to post for all fedora contributors (being
in ambassadors, mentors, packagers, ...). Moderated for the rest of the
world (we need a whole team of moderators for it). [...]
You know how easy it is to forge e-mail identities, don't you?
=== Mailman guidelines ===
* the reply-to should point to the list (reply_goes_to_list = this
list)
I hate that, but bow to the will of the majority. I override it
manually when I compose replies anyway. It's just an annoyance.
* no tagging (subject_prefix = <empty> )
Thanks for that at least.
-- Pete
10:49 p.m.
Pete Zaitcev (zaitcev(a)redhat.com) said:
> * fedora-devel -- For devel discussion. The "old"
fedora-devel-list
> became quite noise and we want to avoid that with the new list. Thus the
> plan is to restrict it to well known open-source or project contributors
> and make it moderated for the rest of the world. Support questions
> regarding devel stuff are off topic here.
I question the assertion behind this. Fedora-devel-list is rather
quiet, considering the size of the project.
> * fedora-devel-discuss -- We need an open devel list for users as
> fedora-devel is restricted. Support questions regarding devel stuff are
> on topic here, too.
Very dubious idea, but ok.
My main problem with this proposal is that you're trying to recreate
the current system of fedora-maintainers and fedora-devel-list
with no change at all.
This is my concern as well - I'd rather just repurpose as:
-maintainers: Announcements (freezes, policy changes, outages, etc.), and
related followup discussion.
-devel: devel discussions.
Bill
1:16 p.m.
Bill Nottingham schrieb:
Pete Zaitcev (zaitcev(a)redhat.com) said:
>> * fedora-devel -- For devel discussion. The "old" fedora-devel-list
>> became quite noise and we want to avoid that with the new list. Thus the
>> plan is to restrict it to well known open-source or project contributors
>> and make it moderated for the rest of the world. Support questions
>> regarding devel stuff are off topic here.
> I question the assertion behind this. Fedora-devel-list is rather
> quiet, considering the size of the project.
>> * fedora-devel-discuss -- We need an open devel list for users as
>> fedora-devel is restricted. Support questions regarding devel stuff are
>> on topic here, too.
> Very dubious idea, but ok.
> My main problem with this proposal is that you're trying to recreate
> the current system of fedora-maintainers and fedora-devel-list
> with no change at all.
This is my concern as well - I'd rather just repurpose as:
-maintainers: Announcements (freezes, policy changes, outages, etc.), and
related followup discussion.
-devel: devel discussions.
My concern is that in above scenario the "related followup discussion"
are on a closed list then where even well known open-source contributors
can't participate. And it might happen that the same things get
discussed on -devel an -maintainers at the same time.
CU
thl
1:38 p.m.
Thorsten Leemhuis (fedora(a)leemhuis.info) said:
> This is my concern as well - I'd rather just repurpose as:
> -maintainers: Announcements (freezes, policy changes, outages, etc.), and
> related followup discussion.
> -devel: devel discussions.
My concern is that in above scenario the "related followup discussion"
are on a closed list then where even well known open-source contributors
can't participate. And it might happen that the same things get
discussed on -devel an -maintainers at the same time.
Not sure why freezes, packaging policy changes, outages are relevant
to non-package maintainers.
Bill
2:02 p.m.
Le vendredi 12 janvier 2007 à 14:38 -0500, Bill Nottingham a écrit :
Thorsten Leemhuis (fedora(a)leemhuis.info) said:
> > This is my concern as well - I'd rather just repurpose as:
> > -maintainers: Announcements (freezes, policy changes, outages, etc.), and
> > related followup discussion.
> > -devel: devel discussions.
>
> My concern is that in above scenario the "related followup discussion"
> are on a closed list then where even well known open-source contributors
> can't participate. And it might happen that the same things get
> discussed on -devel an -maintainers at the same time.
Not sure why freezes, packaging policy changes, outages are relevant
to non-package maintainers.
art, i18n & doc teams need to follow freezes and are impacted by some
outages
marketing/ambassador people need to explain the state of the project to
the outside world (including outages sometimes)
etc
--
Nicolas Mailhot
1:13 p.m.
Pete Zaitcev schrieb:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:25:09 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis
<fedora(a)leemhuis.info> wrote:
> The other goal is to get rid of those lists:
Might as well kill fedora-patch-list too. It saw no uptake at all.
That seems to be gone already afaics. Or I'm to stupid to find it again
(I was even subscribed to it iirc).
> * fedora-devel -- For devel discussion. The "old"
fedora-devel-list
> became quite noise and we want to avoid that with the new list. Thus the
> plan is to restrict it to well known open-source or project contributors
> and make it moderated for the rest of the world. Support questions
> regarding devel stuff are off topic here.
I question the assertion behind this. Fedora-devel-list is rather
quiet, considering the size of the project.
Seems it was still to much and thus fedora-maintainers got created. But
having two lists like that with related topics is IMHO more confusing
than helpful...
> * fedora-devel-discuss -- We need an open devel list for users
as
> fedora-devel is restricted. Support questions regarding devel stuff are
> on topic here, too.
Very dubious idea, but ok.
My main problem with this proposal is that you're trying to recreate
the current system of fedora-maintainers and fedora-devel-list
with no change at all. [...]
Now: fedora-devel-list (devel and users), fedora-test-list (users and a
bit devel, too), fedora-maintainers (devel, private)
Then: fedora-devel-discuss (users) fedora-devel (devel, semi-public)
I think that's a lot better.
> === fedora-cvs-commits ===
>
> All commits should go here, but separated into topics (web, docs, F7,
> devel, ...), similar how we do it for how we do for
> fedora-packaging-announce
Detail: how is it going to be separated? I'd hate to see more
square brackets in subjects.
Mailman supports topics. You can (un)subscribe to them in the mailman
web-interface. No stuff in subjects.
> === fedora-maintainers to fedora-devel ===
> Rename to fedora-devel. Free to post for all fedora contributors (being
> in ambassadors, mentors, packagers, ...). Moderated for the rest of the
> world (we need a whole team of moderators for it). [...]
You know how easy it is to forge e-mail identities, don't you?
Sure. But I'm quite sure most people won't do that. ;-)
> === Mailman guidelines ===
> * the reply-to should point to the list (reply_goes_to_list = this list)
I hate that, but bow to the will of the majority. I override it
manually when I compose replies anyway. It's just an annoyance.
Well, whatever we set, some people will be unhappy with it... And most
of out current lists use it alreay, so I'd like to stick to it to not
confuse people even more.
> * no tagging (subject_prefix = <empty> )
Thanks for that at least.
np :-)
CU
thl
1:58 p.m.
Le vendredi 12 janvier 2007 à 20:13 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis a écrit :
Pete Zaitcev schrieb:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:25:09 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info>
wrote:
>> === fedora-cvs-commits ===
>>
>> All commits should go here, but separated into topics (web, docs, F7,
>> devel, ...), similar how we do it for how we do for
>> fedora-packaging-announce
> Detail: how is it going to be separated? I'd hate to see more
> square brackets in subjects.
Mailman supports topics. You can (un)subscribe to them in the mailman
web-interface. No stuff in subjects.
Which will be of little help to someone that consults an online archive
of the list at one of the popular ML web historians.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
9:03 a.m.
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote :
Find below a proposal for a mailing list reorganization the board
asked
me to work on.
One question : Why are all Fedora lists @redhat.com and not
@fedoraproject.org?
With the Red Hat vs. Fedora infrastructure split, I fail to see the
rationale behind having all Fedora mailing lists have @redhat.com
addresses.
One suggestion : From a sysadmin point of view, I've always found it a
lot more easy to isolate mailing-list traffic from all other mail
traffic, typically by having all lists be @lists.domain instead of
"plain" @domain, and have lists.domain's MX point to a mail server
setup only for mailing-lists. This also eases web-based Mailman list
creation, as it then "just works" with no external calls and such.
My suggestion here would be to create all new lists as
listname(a)lists.fedoraproject.org and eventually migrate the existing
ones, for which it makes sense to do so, later on.
Matthias
--
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 6 (Zod) - Linux kernel 2.6.19-1.2888.fc6
Load : 0.31 0.29 0.29
9:25 a.m.
New subject: move lists to lists.fedoraproject.org? (was: Re: proposal: mailing list reorganization)
Matthias Saou schrieb:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote :
> Find below a proposal for a mailing list reorganization the board asked
> me to work on.
One question : Why are all Fedora lists @redhat.com and not
@fedoraproject.org?
Probably because we had no machine like that when we set up the first
mailing lists.
It was discussed once to move all the list to something like
lists.fedoraproject.org (can't remember when and where -- a year ago on
fedora-devel or fedora-infrastrcture? maybe someone else might
remember), but it was decided back then that it's to much work for a
small gain.
Do we want to revisit that? Then the mailing list reorganization
suddenly becomes a really big project.
That would have some benefits:
* a much clearer differentiation between Fedora Project and Red Hat
* more control over the lists; from what I've heard between the words
by some people it seems to be a bit problematic to interact with the Red
Hat IS that maintains the lists.
[...]
My suggestion here would be to create all new lists as
listname(a)lists.fedoraproject.org and eventually migrate the existing
ones, for which it makes sense to do so, later on.
If others agree with that I'm for it, too. But I'll be a lot of work.
Then I want help ;-)
CU
thl
9:32 a.m.
New subject: move lists to lists.fedoraproject.org?
Thorsten Leemhuis schrieb:
It was discussed once to move all the list to something like
lists.fedoraproject.org (can't remember when and where -- a year ago on
fedora-devel or fedora-infrastrcture? maybe someone else might
remember)
I should have asked google directly; thread starts here:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-marketing-list/2005-December/msg000...
CU
thl
10:30 a.m.
New subject: move lists to lists.fedoraproject.org? (was: Re: proposal: mailing list reorganization)
On 1/11/07, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> wrote:
Matthias Saou schrieb:
Do we want to revisit that? Then the mailing list reorganization
suddenly becomes a really big project.
Would it be worth it to do a clean cutover? Creating all new lists
and disabling the old ones.
-Mike
12:46 p.m.
New subject: move lists to lists.fedoraproject.org?
Mike McGrath schrieb:
On 1/11/07, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> wrote:
> Matthias Saou schrieb:
> Do we want to revisit that? Then the mailing list reorganization
> suddenly becomes a really big project.
Would it be worth it to do a clean cutover? Creating all new lists
and disabling the old ones.
I'd prefer a slow move. Move those over that we want to touch first.
After that the most important ones that want to be moved. The wait a bit
if those that remain on the old server are really worth to bring over.
CU
thl
11:23 a.m.
New subject: move lists to lists.fedoraproject.org? (was: Re: proposal: mailing list reorganization)
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote :
> [...]
> My suggestion here would be to create all new lists as
> listname(a)lists.fedoraproject.org and eventually migrate the existing
> ones, for which it makes sense to do so, later on.
If others agree with that I'm for it, too. But I'll be a lot of work.
Then I want help ;-)
For any sysadmin tasks, just poke me if any help is needed :-)
Matthias
--
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 6 (Zod) - Linux kernel 2.6.19-1.2888.fc6
Load : 2.22 2.11 1.43
9:28 a.m.
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 16:03 +0100, Matthias Saou wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote :
> Find below a proposal for a mailing list reorganization the board asked
> me to work on.
One question : Why are all Fedora lists @redhat.com and not
@fedoraproject.org?
With the Red Hat vs. Fedora infrastructure split, I fail to see the
rationale behind having all Fedora mailing lists have @redhat.com
addresses.
One suggestion : From a sysadmin point of view, I've always found it a
lot more easy to isolate mailing-list traffic from all other mail
traffic, typically by having all lists be @lists.domain instead of
"plain" @domain, and have lists.domain's MX point to a mail server
setup only for mailing-lists. This also eases web-based Mailman list
creation, as it then "just works" with no external calls and such.
My suggestion here would be to create all new lists as
listname(a)lists.fedoraproject.org and eventually migrate the existing
ones, for which it makes sense to do so, later on.
+1
It makes a nice clean break for the mailing list changeover.
-sv
10:14 a.m.
seth vidal wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 16:03 +0100, Matthias Saou wrote:
> My suggestion here would be to create all new lists as
> listname(a)lists.fedoraproject.org and eventually migrate the existing
> ones, for which it makes sense to do so, later on.
>
+1
It makes a nice clean break for the mailing list changeover.
-sv
Agreed. My take on this is at
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-marketing-list/2005-December/msg000...
Rahul
9:31 p.m.
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
* fedora-devel -- For devel discussion. The "old"
fedora-devel-list
became quite noise and we want to avoid that with the new list.
What's the problem with high-traffic lists? Today, almost anybody can
afford the bandwidth and any half decent MUA can group by threads and
apply powerful filters on the fly.
In my experience, if you split too much by topic to reduce noise,
you end up with very little discussion. People are less likely to
see each other's post and comment.
Look at the LKML for an example for an example of a very successful
project with a single, very high traffic list. You can comfortably
read it every day by looking at threads with subjects you care about.
Look at Xorg for the opposite problem: 90% of the lists were desert
until they merged them together.
--
// Bernardo Innocenti - Develer S.r.l., R&D dept.
\X/ http://www.develer.com/
9:39 p.m.
On Thursday 11 January 2007 22:31, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
What's the problem with high-traffic lists? Today, almost
anybody can
afford the bandwidth and any half decent MUA can group by threads and
apply powerful filters on the fly.
Its not the high-traffic. Its the amount of noise vs signal. Lists like LKML
tend to have a lot of signal in that traffic. While unfortunately lists like
fedora-devel have a lot of noise, that drives off the type of people who
could handle the traffic should it be all signal. Even still its hard to
keep up, and READ that much email.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
11:40 p.m.
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 22:39 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thursday 11 January 2007 22:31, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> What's the problem with high-traffic lists? Today, almost anybody can
> afford the bandwidth and any half decent MUA can group by threads and
> apply powerful filters on the fly.
ACK.
Its not the high-traffic. Its the amount of noise vs signal. Lists
like LKML
tend to have a lot of signal in that traffic. While unfortunately lists like
fedora-devel have a lot of noise, that drives off the type of people who
could handle the traffic should it be all signal. Even still its hard to
keep up, and READ that much email.
Well, IMO the real problem with the Fedora lists is not signal/noise
it's "miss communication", primarily caused by people not getting mails,
because
* they can't be subscribed to all lists.
* they don't know were to post to.
* cross-posting.
* some lists are closed
* "reply-to's being tweaked
...
So instead of inventing new lists, I would suggest to
redefine/reconsider the purpose of existing lists and to close down
several of them.
Ralf
11:24 p.m.
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thursday 11 January 2007 22:31, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> What's the problem with high-traffic lists? Today, almost anybody can
> afford the bandwidth and any half decent MUA can group by threads and
> apply powerful filters on the fly.
Its not the high-traffic. Its the amount of noise vs signal. Lists like LKML
tend to have a lot of signal in that traffic. While unfortunately lists like
fedora-devel have a lot of noise, that drives off the type of people who
could handle the traffic should it be all signal. Even still its hard to
keep up, and READ that much email.
Agreed. Maybe we could take a more proactive approach towards
off-topic posts, trolls and "what's a grub?" kinds of threads?
The GCC guys are very zelant in keeping the gcc@ list clear of
homework requests and other dumb questions. And they've even
learnt to do that in a politely way instead of pissing off all
the newbies.
Just grep the gcc list archives for the word "gcc-help".
--
// Bernardo Innocenti - Develer S.r.l., R&D dept.
\X/ http://www.develer.com/
2:08 a.m.
On 1/13/07, Bernardo Innocenti <bernie(a)develer.com> wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thursday 11 January 2007 22:31, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
>> What's the problem with high-traffic lists? Today, almost anybody can
>> afford the bandwidth and any half decent MUA can group by threads and
>> apply powerful filters on the fly.
>
> Its not the high-traffic. Its the amount of noise vs signal. Lists like LKML
> tend to have a lot of signal in that traffic. While unfortunately lists like
> fedora-devel have a lot of noise, that drives off the type of people who
> could handle the traffic should it be all signal. Even still its hard to
> keep up, and READ that much email.
Agreed. Maybe we could take a more proactive approach towards
off-topic posts, trolls and "what's a grub?" kinds of threads?
The GCC guys are very zelant in keeping the gcc@ list clear of
homework requests and other dumb questions. And they've even
learnt to do that in a politely way instead of pissing off all
the newbies.
Just grep the gcc list archives for the word "gcc-help".
Maybe an introductory email (with rules) be sent upon subscription to
a list, and standard responses to the type of unwanted message you
described be developed, so that those familiar to the list can just
copy and paste as a response.
--
Fedora Core 6 and proud
11:03 p.m.
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> Just grep the gcc list archives for the word
"gcc-help".
Maybe an introductory email (with rules) be sent upon subscription to
a list, and standard responses to the type of unwanted message you
described be developed, so that those familiar to the list can just
copy and paste as a response.
Yes. And I also like this trick:
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/mailinglists/
you won't find the posting address until you've at least *seen*
the etiquette.
--
// Bernardo Innocenti - Develer S.r.l., R&D dept.
\X/ http://www.develer.com/
6348
days inactive
6354
days old
47 comments
18 participants
participants (18)
-
Arthur Pemberton -
Bernardo Innocenti -
Bill Nottingham -
Bojan Smojver -
Jeremy Katz -
Jesse Keating -
Josh Boyer -
Karsten Wade -
Matthias Saou -
Mike McGrath -
Nicolas Mailhot -
Nigel Metheringham -
Pete Zaitcev -
Rahul Sundaram -
Ralf Corsepius -
seth vidal -
Thomas M Steenholdt -
Thorsten Leemhuis