I think a separate mailing list for just ticket creation would be nice as well. I think that’s what many of us filter down the commits@ list to. That doesn’t have to happen in place of the proposed change but would make it easier for people to follow new issue creation. From there I go to and follow/comment on/etc. issues I’m interested in.
> On Aug 16, 2016, at 4:06 PM, Eric Evans <john.eric.ev...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [ ... ] > >> I propose that we take advantage of the dev list to perform that >> separation. Major new features and architectural improvements should be >> discussed first here, then when consensus on design is achieved, moved to >> Jira for implementation and review. >> >> I think this will also help with the problem when the initial idea proves >> to be unworkable and gets revised substantially later after much >> discussion. It can be difficult to figure out what the conclusion was, as >> review comments start to pile up afterwards. Having that discussion on the >> list, and summarizing on Jira, would mitigate this. > > TL;DR +1 > > I think there are actually a couple of related, but disjoint issues here. > > IMO, a JIRA should be the source of truth for an issue, a way to track > any on-going efforts, and a historical account after-the-fact. > Regardless of where you think discussions should take place, I would > argue there is room for improvement here; Many of our JIRAs (I would > argue the most interesting ones!), are very difficult to make use of > for either of these cases (current status, or after-the-fact). Some > curation (as someone else pointed out in this thread), could go a long > way. Retitling and/or revising the description as the scope of a > ticket evolves, or posting a summary or current status in the > description body would be ways for people who are up to speed on an > issue, to spend a few minutes making it valuable to others. So would > summarizing discussions that take place elsewhere. > > The other issue is discoverability and/or inclusivity. If the only > way to keep abreast of what is happening is to follow the fire-hose of > all JIRA updates, then contribution is going to be limited to those > with the bandwidth. If you work on Cassandra full-time, this probably > doesn't seem like a big deal, but if your time is limited, then it can > create quite a barrier (and I've been on both sides of this with > Cassandra). So moving serious discussions to the mailing list is also > a sort of curation, since it creates a venue free of all the > minutiae/noise. > > My personal opinion is also that it's far easier to manage a given > volume with email, and that the discussions are easier to follow (the > interface is better at representing the ontology, for example), but > from what I can gather, not everyone agrees so YMMV. > > Cheers, > > -- > Eric Evans > john.eric.ev...@gmail.com
