On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 06:36:25PM -0400, David Nalley wrote: > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Chip Childers > <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > > I've noticed that some of the projects separate discussions between dev > > and general administrative items via a general@ and a dev@ list. For > > example, the last email I sent was about project meta-data. It's not > > specifically about developing cloudstack, but about managing our > > community activities. > > > > Does anyone think it makes sense to break that type of discussion out > > into a general@ list? > > So I unclear on this. > > All committers are expected to be on -dev. > > Now, because administrivia is happening on general@ all committers > will also need to be on that list. So I don't see a lot of benefit to > moving that traffic off of dev@. I also don't see adminitrstrative > stuff taking up that much bandwidth. I understand marketing being > separate, though I think we've seen a number of 'missed messages' > already from that. Dev@ is where contributors 'live' - so metadata > about the project seems a fit there - or am I missing something? > > --David >
I didn't have a specific opinion about doing this or not. I raised it simply because I saw that other projects do things this way. Looking into it a bit more deeply, it appears that it's largely a function of the projects having built themselves up into unbrella projects. The ASF Board flattened things since then, but the lists still exist. Given that we have a mix of responses to this question (some for it and some against it), and that the pattern seems to be tied to the unliked practice of creating umbrella communities, I believe that we should not make the change within CloudStack. -chip
