mailing-list reorganisation, round 3 on this list

[Axel Thimm]

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 believe that if you need a tag like "[packaging]" to differentiate
> traffic that the packaging committee needs to follow, then you've
> crammed too much stuff onto one list.

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.

So I suggest to have a developer/packager "announce" list, where
various boards, sigs and so on can *tersly* communicate *results*,
e.g.  important board/fesco decisions, packaging guidelines changes,
infrastructure/buildsystem changes etc., but keep the discussions in
separate lists as happens now. fedora-devel-news?

But before continuing on thinking about mailing lists structure,
perhaps one should wait to see what the upcoming organisational
structures will look like to start mapping them to lists, or to deduce
some list structure out of it. I guess the most important and
communicative organs do need to keep dedicated lists for a good SNR.
-- 
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/20070106/e804df97/attachment.bin