mailing-list reorganisation, round 4 on this list

[Axel Thimm]

On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 11:15:19AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 01:53:22PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>>>> > >>>>> "WT" == Warren Togami <wtogami at redhat.com> writes:
> >> > [Regarding fedora-packaging]
> >> > WT> How was the signal to noise ratio on this list?
> >> > 
> >> > fedora-packaging has always had a very high signal to noise ratio,
> >> > since it's used primarily for Packaging Committee discussions.  If we
> >> > lose it and it becomes difficult to perform committee business due to
> >> > additional discussion on fedora-devel, there's a good chance that
> >> > someone will just set up a private list elsewhere.  Many PC members
> >> > are short on time as it is.

> > I'd second keeping fedora-packaging as is. The charter is discussing
> > about packaging, not (specific) packages.
> > But Thorsten has a point: All packagers need to know what happens over
> > there - same is true for some other lists, too.
> 
> Axel, tibbs, does the new idea (fedora-extras traffic mostly goes to
> fedora-packaging to cover both packaging in practice and the guidelines
> on one list) suite your needs better?

On the contrary, what tibbs and I didn't like is that committee
discussions get mangled with additional discussion. Your previous
suggestion had this list merge with fedora-devel, now it's
fedora-extras, in both cases you get very different content killing
the other's SNR.

I still think most organizational bodies need a list primary for their
daily work. That is not to say that other people should not subscribe
and discuss there, too, but the topic should be defined in that way.

I liked the way it was until now: Packagers would consult each other
on fedora-extras or other lists and if some issue escalated for the
packaging committee to look at it would do so. That's why we have such
a good SNR.

Please keep fedora-packaging as is - it is one of the split off lists
that served its purpose rather well IMHO.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20070107/2c253193/attachment.bin