I can be a moderator on the users list 🙋
On 2025/02/24 23:58:20 Paul King wrote: > I created (still pending with a 12-24 hr delay) the lists with the > default list behavior which lets subscribers post but others are > moderated. > > It would be good to have a few PPMC folks to help moderate the list. > Let me know if you are happy to help and I'll add you. > > What's involved? Emails from non-subscribers go to moderators. There > is a link to accept, another to reject. There is an optional place to > give a reason but it's rarely used since most rejections are spam > bots. If you see a legitimate email, just click accept and it will > appear on the list. You can hit reject on spam but it will just sit in > a queue and eventually time out if you ignore it (i.e., no need to > worry if it ends up in your spam folder and you ignore it). > > Paul. > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 9:41 AM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote: > > > > It looks like there is consensus, so I'll go ahead and create those lists. > > > > Does someone want to create an issue to make the old lists read-only > > once the new lists are up and running? At least for users. > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 4:14 PM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > Currently Grails has private and dev mailing lists created. Folks > > > interested in the development of Grails should subscribe to the dev > > > list. Folks on the PPMC (podling project management committee) should > > > subscribe to the private list. Typically projects have additional > > > lists. > > > > > > The most common one is "users" for users of Grails to ask questions. > > > > > > **It is recommended you have a users mailing list.** > > > > > > The next most common ones are commits/notifications. There are lots of > > > potential sources of information that can provide insight into changes > > > made in the project. The ASF strongly recommends that you send those > > > to a mailing list. You will have numerous options to configure what > > > goes where (it can be changed over time and you don't need to decide > > > that now). For now you just need to decide if you want one or both of > > > those lists. You can send some of the sources of notifications to the > > > dev list but it can soon become swamped, so you'd typically only want > > > a select subset to go there. > > > > > > Geb just has notifications. It sends a few select sources of info to > > > geb-dev and everything else (includes commits, discussions, issues, GH > > > action status, PR comments; about 100/month) goes to > > > geb-notifications. The advantage of having one list is that there is > > > just one place to look but there might be more noise if you are > > > browsing through looking for something. > > > > > > Groovy has both commits (all commits/code changes from all repos; > > > about 200/month) and notifications (PR status changes, issue tracking > > > comments; 300+/month). The advantage of splitting the two is that if > > > you are searching for a code change, commits is likely where you'll > > > find luck. If you remember something someone said (maybe in an issue > > > comment), notifications might be the better place to look. I encourage > > > bigger projects to go down this path since you have a bit more > > > flexibility, but I wouldn't call it a super strong preference. > > > > > > You could also go more fine grained and have "issues", "discussions" > > > and so forth. I don't have a lot of experience with this approach. > > > Some aspects would be simpler but if you can't remember where a > > > discussion took place, as a discussion, in a mailing list, on an > > > issue, a comment on a GitHub commit, etc, you might have more places > > > to look. > > > > > > **It is recommended you have a commits mailing list.** > > > > > > **It is recommended have a notifications mailing list.** > > > > > > There are other possibilities, e.g. "security". For now you can just > > > use "private" and if you end up responding to lots of security > > > aspects, you can create a special one later. > > > > > > In terms of process, if you are happy with my suggestions, you can > > > respond +1 to this whole email or +1 to the specific lists you are > > > happy with. We should discuss as long as needed. After discussion dies > > > down (or around 72 hrs have passed), if it looks like there is general > > > consensus, I'll go ahead and create the lists. We should iterate if > > > discussions head us in a slightly different direction. > > > > > > If it looks like we need any further clarity, I'll create a [VOTE] > > > thread separate to this [DISCUSS] thread and we can vote and gain > > > consensus that way. PPMC votes are binding but, as a general rule, > > > you'd typically want to take votes from all community members into > > > account in such discussions/votes. > > > > > > Cheers, Paul. >
