Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes: > I do think the example of Ubuntu splitting ubuntu-devel into ubuntu-devel and > ubuntu-devel-discuss may be a relevant data point. As an active participant > in Ubuntu development both before and after the split I paid attention to it > (and remained subscribed to ubuntu-devel-discuss long after most other > developers had unsubscribed).
I would in opposition think that having ubuntu-devel and ubuntu-devel-discuss was a bad decision. As a Debian Developer, I from time to time have a question about how things are working in the Ubuntu Development. But since I am not an Ubuntu developer, I can only use the -discuss mailing list. Since, as you describe, many developers just unsubscribe there, my questions always have a good chance to remain unanswered, which is at the end bad for Ubuntu as well -- since I may solve someting non-optimal for Ubuntu, or even frustated unsubscribe as well there. The big Plus on Debian is that we have a -devel list that is reachable for everybody, and the threshold to participate is low. When I try to get people involved in Debian, I always mention that they can discuss their issues with the development there when they see a need. Having the discussion exclusively for the DDs (and DMs) would break our openness. So, I would vote against such a mailing list. If one sees the need for a filtered one, he could just setup a filter and let only @debian.org addresses pass. Maybe, one could provide some statistics in how big the noise is actually in debian-devel? Best regards Ole
