TLP migration questions...

["Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>]

Does anyone have any thoughts on what we should do for mailing lists 
when we migrate to TLP?

It seems that most projects simplify the name of the list, e.g., 
"felix-dev" ==> "dev"...

I assume this is because "felix-dev@felix.apache.org" is repetitive. I 
assume we will do the same thing.

I was also wondering if we should now try to separate our traffic into 
two lists, one for Felix development and one for Felix users, thus we 
could have:

    * dev@felix.apache.org
    * users@felix.apache.org

I am not sure if this is necessary or not. Thoughts on this or anything 
else?

-> richard

Re: TLP migration questions...

[Enrique Rodriguez <en...@gmail.com>]

On 4/18/07, Felix Meschberger <Fe...@day.com> wrote:
> ...
> On the other hand, and as Niclas pointed out, more and more questions are
> more like users@ questions than dev@ questions. Additionally, I tend to see
> a somewhat psychological aspect of having a users@ list: Maybe it is better
> for community building to have a low-barrier users@ list in addition to the
> dev@ list.
> ...

I agree re: having a users list.  I think users hesitate to post to a
developer's list for fear of scolding.

Enrique

Re: TLP migration questions...

["Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>]

Ok, I have created a JIRA issue for infrastructure to start the TLP 
migration process. Attached is the content of the request.

For the web site, as I understand it, we must send an email to root 
requesting UNIX karma for committers to access the new location on 
people.apache.org and to open a JIRA issue for this request. I assume 
that the JIRA issue is for infrastructure again, but I am not sure for 
which JIRA component, anyone know?

Thanks.

-> richard

Re: TLP migration questions...

[Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>]

Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Felix Meschberger wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Initially, I was convinced, too, that a users@ list would not be needed
>> given the current volume.
>>
>> On the other hand, and as Niclas pointed out, more and more questions are
>> more like users@ questions than dev@ questions. Additionally, I tend 
>> to see
>> a somewhat psychological aspect of having a users@ list: Maybe it is 
>> better
>> for community building to have a low-barrier users@ list in addition 
>> to the
>> dev@ list.
>>
>> Therefore, I now agree with Niclas, that we probably need a users@ list.
> 
> I can go either way and I think Karl said he could too, so unless anyone 
> has any major objections, I guess we can go with a users mailing list.
> 
> This then raises another question. I assume that they move the mailing 
> list archives and subscriber list from the old list to the new 
> list...should the felix-dev archive and its subscribers move to dev or 
> users ?

Archives should go to the dev list, users@ would be a new list. As to 
subscribers, we could do either - new list, no subscribers, or subscribe 
all current subscribers to this new list.

I'd probably go with the second - subscribing all dev subscribers to 
users@, and giving folks the option to unsub as required.

Regards, Upayavira

RE: TLP migration questions...

[Rick Litton <Ri...@ktd-kyocera.com>]

Felix Meschberger wrote:

>>
>> list...should the felix-dev archive and its subscribers move to dev
or
>> users ?


> I think, to the dev list.

> Regards
> Felix

May be to both initially?  Then people can unsubscribe to either at a
later time but hopefully not to both.  OTOH, we don't know when users
would migrate to becoming contributors to Felix too... ;)

Rick Litton

Re: TLP migration questions...

[Felix Meschberger <Fe...@day.com>]

Hi,

On 4/19/07, Richard S. Hall <he...@ungoverned.org> wrote:
>
> list...should the felix-dev archive and its subscribers move to dev or
> users ?


I think, to the dev list.

Regards
Felix

Re: TLP migration questions...

["Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>]

Felix Meschberger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Initially, I was convinced, too, that a users@ list would not be needed
> given the current volume.
>
> On the other hand, and as Niclas pointed out, more and more questions are
> more like users@ questions than dev@ questions. Additionally, I tend 
> to see
> a somewhat psychological aspect of having a users@ list: Maybe it is 
> better
> for community building to have a low-barrier users@ list in addition 
> to the
> dev@ list.
>
> Therefore, I now agree with Niclas, that we probably need a users@ list.

I can go either way and I think Karl said he could too, so unless anyone 
has any major objections, I guess we can go with a users mailing list.

This then raises another question. I assume that they move the mailing 
list archives and subscriber list from the old list to the new 
list...should the felix-dev archive and its subscribers move to dev or 
users ?

-> richard
>
> Just my €.02
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
>
>
> On 4/19/07, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday 19 April 2007 03:31, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>> > I am not convinced that we need a "users" list, just brought it up for
>> > discussion.
>>
>> I am convinced a users@ list is appropriate.
>>
>> Just look at the last 10 threads on the current list (this one 
>> excluded);
>>
>> -1. Felix/OSGi and JADE Second Part  -> users@
>> -2. bundle with felix.auto.start.2 are not starting  -> users@
>> -3. new release  -> dev@
>> -4. Bundle symbolic name not unique? -> users@
>> -5. Bundle repository -> users@
>> -6. [jira] Created: (FELIX-270) iPOJO Composition & Arch improve...  ->
>> dev@
>> -7. Launching/Embedding docs  ->  both
>> -8. JADE and OSGI integration  -> users@
>> -9. 101.6.4 of R4.1? Service Compendium  -> dev@
>> -10. Felix TLP migration -> dev@
>>
>> 5 exclusive users@ list threads, 4 dev@ ones.
>>
>> On top of that, it is likely (although not very strong argument) that
>> Felix
>> will get a lot more traction once visible as TLP, and even more so 
>> with a
>> 1.0
>> release out. That means more Jira issues, that most users don't want to
>> see,
>> et cetera.
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>> Niclas
>>
>

Re: TLP migration questions...

[Felix Meschberger <Fe...@day.com>]

Hi,

Initially, I was convinced, too, that a users@ list would not be needed
given the current volume.

On the other hand, and as Niclas pointed out, more and more questions are
more like users@ questions than dev@ questions. Additionally, I tend to see
a somewhat psychological aspect of having a users@ list: Maybe it is better
for community building to have a low-barrier users@ list in addition to the
dev@ list.

Therefore, I now agree with Niclas, that we probably need a users@ list.

Just my €.02

Regards
Felix



On 4/19/07, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
>
> On Thursday 19 April 2007 03:31, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> > I am not convinced that we need a "users" list, just brought it up for
> > discussion.
>
> I am convinced a users@ list is appropriate.
>
> Just look at the last 10 threads on the current list (this one excluded);
>
> -1. Felix/OSGi and JADE Second Part  -> users@
> -2. bundle with felix.auto.start.2 are not starting  -> users@
> -3. new release  -> dev@
> -4. Bundle symbolic name not unique? -> users@
> -5. Bundle repository -> users@
> -6. [jira] Created: (FELIX-270) iPOJO Composition & Arch improve...  ->
> dev@
> -7. Launching/Embedding docs  ->  both
> -8. JADE and OSGI integration  -> users@
> -9. 101.6.4 of R4.1? Service Compendium  -> dev@
> -10. Felix TLP migration -> dev@
>
> 5 exclusive users@ list threads, 4 dev@ ones.
>
> On top of that, it is likely (although not very strong argument) that
> Felix
> will get a lot more traction once visible as TLP, and even more so with a
> 1.0
> release out. That means more Jira issues, that most users don't want to
> see,
> et cetera.
>
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
>

Re: TLP migration questions...

[Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>]

On Thursday 19 April 2007 03:31, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> I am not convinced that we need a "users" list, just brought it up for
> discussion.

I am convinced a users@ list is appropriate.

Just look at the last 10 threads on the current list (this one excluded);

 -1. Felix/OSGi and JADE Second Part  -> users@
 -2. bundle with felix.auto.start.2 are not starting  -> users@
 -3. new release  -> dev@
 -4. Bundle symbolic name not unique? -> users@
 -5. Bundle repository -> users@
 -6. [jira] Created: (FELIX-270) iPOJO Composition & Arch improve...  -> dev@
 -7. Launching/Embedding docs  ->  both
 -8. JADE and OSGI integration  -> users@
 -9. 101.6.4 of R4.1? Service Compendium  -> dev@
 -10. Felix TLP migration -> dev@

5 exclusive users@ list threads, 4 dev@ ones.

On top of that, it is likely (although not very strong argument) that Felix 
will get a lot more traction once visible as TLP, and even more so with a 1.0 
release out. That means more Jira issues, that most users don't want to see, 
et cetera.


Cheers
Niclas

Re: TLP migration questions...

[Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>]

Marcel Offermans wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2007, at 21:55 , Karl Pauls wrote:
> 
>>> I am not convinced that we need a "users" list, just brought it up for
>>> discussion. My thinking is that we don't have overwhelming volume on
>>> this list, so it is probably okay to keep just one...it is a pretty good
>>> mix too. Further, I find that users tend to get confused about where
>>> mail should be sent when there are multiple lists...
>>
>> That is my impression too. More often then not what looks like a
>> "users" question in the beginning turns into a "dev" questions before
>> too long (which I think is great) -- hence, I'd rather stick with
>> "only" the dev list for now. However, I don't care enough to argue if
>> somebody feels strongly about it...
> 
> Our users are developers, I agree with the strategy to start with one 
> list and split it up if necessary.

Playing devils advocate - are they developers "of Felix"? Or of their 
own application? This is the crucial distinction. There are many Apache 
projects where users are developers so Felix isn't alone here.

I think it is a matter of (a) list volume and (b) whether we see ourself 
as producing stable releases around which we intend to build a user 
community. Maybe we should be aiming to do (b) but it doesn't quite feel 
like we are yet.

Regards, Upayavira

Re: TLP migration questions...

[Marcel Offermans <ma...@luminis.nl>]

On Apr 18, 2007, at 21:55 , Karl Pauls wrote:

>> I am not convinced that we need a "users" list, just brought it up  
>> for
>> discussion. My thinking is that we don't have overwhelming volume on
>> this list, so it is probably okay to keep just one...it is a  
>> pretty good
>> mix too. Further, I find that users tend to get confused about where
>> mail should be sent when there are multiple lists...
>
> That is my impression too. More often then not what looks like a
> "users" question in the beginning turns into a "dev" questions before
> too long (which I think is great) -- hence, I'd rather stick with
> "only" the dev list for now. However, I don't care enough to argue if
> somebody feels strongly about it...

Our users are developers, I agree with the strategy to start with one  
list and split it up if necessary.

Greetings, Marcel

Re: TLP migration questions...

[Karl Pauls <ka...@gmail.com>]

> > The dev list will be dev@felix.apache.org. If we want a user list, it
> > probably should be users@, although there are at least some called user@.
>
> I am not convinced that we need a "users" list, just brought it up for
> discussion. My thinking is that we don't have overwhelming volume on
> this list, so it is probably okay to keep just one...it is a pretty good
> mix too. Further, I find that users tend to get confused about where
> mail should be sent when there are multiple lists...
>
> -> richard

That is my impression too. More often then not what looks like a
"users" question in the beginning turns into a "dev" questions before
too long (which I think is great) -- hence, I'd rather stick with
"only" the dev list for now. However, I don't care enough to argue if
somebody feels strongly about it...

regards,

Karl

> >
> > And the private list becomes private@
> >
> > Regards, Upayavira
> >
>


-- 
Karl Pauls
karlpauls@gmail.com

Re: TLP migration questions...

[Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>]

Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Upayavira wrote:
>> The dev list will be dev@felix.apache.org. If we want a user list, it 
>> probably should be users@, although there are at least some called user@.
> 
> I am not convinced that we need a "users" list, just brought it up for 
> discussion. My thinking is that we don't have overwhelming volume on 
> this list, so it is probably okay to keep just one...it is a pretty good 
> mix too. Further, I find that users tend to get confused about where 
> mail should be sent when there are multiple lists...

I also think we're okay with one list at the moment. We can spin off a 
users list whenever we consider it necessary.

One time when we may want to do so is when we start having releases that 
we commit to maintain. At that point we will have 'users' in the more 
conventional sense. At the moment, we're still a development community 
with some more pioneering users.

Regards, Upayavira

Re: TLP migration questions...

["Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>]

Upayavira wrote:
> The dev list will be dev@felix.apache.org. If we want a user list, it 
> probably should be users@, although there are at least some called user@.

I am not convinced that we need a "users" list, just brought it up for 
discussion. My thinking is that we don't have overwhelming volume on 
this list, so it is probably okay to keep just one...it is a pretty good 
mix too. Further, I find that users tend to get confused about where 
mail should be sent when there are multiple lists...

-> richard

>
> And the private list becomes private@
>
> Regards, Upayavira
>

Re: TLP migration questions...

[Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>]

Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Richard S. Hall wrote:
>> Does anyone have any thoughts on what we should do for mailing lists 
>> when we migrate to TLP?
>>
>> It seems that most projects simplify the name of the list, e.g., 
>> "felix-dev" ==> "dev"...
>>
>> I assume this is because "felix-dev@felix.apache.org" is repetitive. I 
>> assume we will do the same thing.
>>
>> I was also wondering if we should now try to separate our traffic into 
>> two lists, one for Felix development and one for Felix users, thus we 
>> could have:
>>
>>    * dev@felix.apache.org
>>    * users@felix.apache.org
>
> Or I guess for consistency: user@felix.apache.org...

The dev list will be dev@felix.apache.org. If we want a user list, it 
probably should be users@, although there are at least some called user@.

And the private list becomes private@

Regards, Upayavira

Re: TLP migration questions...

["Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>]

Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Does anyone have any thoughts on what we should do for mailing lists 
> when we migrate to TLP?
>
> It seems that most projects simplify the name of the list, e.g., 
> "felix-dev" ==> "dev"...
>
> I assume this is because "felix-dev@felix.apache.org" is repetitive. I 
> assume we will do the same thing.
>
> I was also wondering if we should now try to separate our traffic into 
> two lists, one for Felix development and one for Felix users, thus we 
> could have:
>
>    * dev@felix.apache.org
>    * users@felix.apache.org

Or I guess for consistency: user@felix.apache.org...

-> richard
>
> I am not sure if this is necessary or not. Thoughts on this or 
> anything else?
>
> -> richard