While I am part of the [RDF] community - I would be careful about sub-lists with "too few people" (e.g. <3).
As you said, voting on releases (and other PMC-level votes) should be kept on the all-dev - formally then the sublist should not be a worry - you wouldn't make a mailing list for two people anyway. Commits and issues should definitely be on the sub-lists, if they exists - as they would be part of the overall noise for everyone else. It would be a relief to the [RDF] community, a separate mailing list (e.g. r...@commons.apache.org) would make it much more accessible to invite non-committer third-parties who are involved just with Commons-RDF during its design phase. There's a danger of small & fresh sandbox communities ending up in a fragmenting "mini incubator" (without the usual checks and balances) if they start straight off in separate mailing lists. I would assume only established sub-communities would go straight to a sub-mailing list. Some older/stable commons-* things might not benefit have a dead mailing list with 3 people - it's better emails from a user of commons-semiabandoned get picked up in general list (hoping for a volunteer) - so I guess this would be up for each sub-community to do a [$project][VOTE] to see if they want their own sub-list. +3 should be sufficient. Perhaps forwarding this thread to the general@incubator list would be appropriate - there we are currently discussing the possibility of fresh projects bypassing the incubator process and become a "probationary" TLP reporting directly to the board, and rather require 3 active mentors (with experience from "proper" PMCs) on the new PMC: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorV2 (whenever the wiki is online) http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201501.mbox/%3CCALhtWkcPptYsE%2BrpF42z75zNU%3DHKbcom7XC%3DU4LqmD_grWQg3Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E Incoming Apache-majority communities like [RDF] and established, active commons-* modules would probably fulfil that requirement directly. The proposals have not mentioned what is the plan for non-TLP podlings. On 16 January 2015 at 00:47, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: > Hi. > > In the discussion that started about RDF, it seems that the > traffic volume is a stumbling block. > [For some time now, it has been a growing nuisance, and the > usual dismissal about filters won't change the fact: Setting > up a filter that will redirect stuff to /dev/null is a waste > of bandwidth.] > > If different ML are created, people interested in everything > can subscribe _once_, and nothing will change for them. > For people who spend a lot of time just deleting dozens messages > and notifications a day, it will be a relief. > > Maintaining community conversation is not a problem: just > create an "all-...@commons.apache.org" ML for things that > need input form a larger audience (like votes). > > > Best regards, > Gilles > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > -- Stian Soiland-Reyes Apache Taverna (incubating) http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
