mailing-list reorganisation, round 4 on this list

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Axel Thimm schrieb:
> 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.

Well, I on the contrary heard complain that the split made everything
way more complicated and that we have to many lists. And I want the
packagers involved in the discussions about packaging -- a separate list
makes that only more complicated.

So I'll leave it there until I hear more complains (if I hear those I'll
propose to leave fedora-packaging and will suggest fedora-packages or
fedora-collective as alternative, but then this whole idea "let's get
rid of some mailing list" becomes more and more a mailing list shuffle).
I would strongly dislike to differentiate to much between theoretical
(guidelines) and practical (packages in the repo that have to follow
those guidelines) packaging.

/me thinks a bit more about it some more

Hmm, I send my "how to govern and manage the new combined repository"
out already and proposed two groups (one that takes care of the repo and
one that takes care of the guidelines) there. I now think that was wrong.

The packaging committee was created because FESCo had a lot to do
already and we needed the guidelines for both Core and Extras. That's
history now. So why not have one Committee again that handles both
theoretical and practical packaging. That's less overhead.

CU
thl