You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@qpid.apache.org by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> on 2013/01/18 18:21:21 UTC
mailing lists and fragmented communication
I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing
out on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list without
reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a large
part of the community in the dark. Now that we have a distinct list for
proton there is the possibility of yet more fragmentation.
I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list for
discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that cross-cut
different components or that would benefit from wider participation. Not
all topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is always
going to be the case.
It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume that
this would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of subject
could help people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I think do
warrant their own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be avoided if
so desired).
Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged with
unwanted emails?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by "Weston M. Price" <wp...@redhat.com>.
On Jan 18, 2013, at 12:51 PM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 01/18/2013 05:33 PM, Ted Ross wrote:
>> We either exclude people by sending to one list or, like this email, we
>> include all lists and everybody gets three copies.
>
> Its not the duplicate copies that are the biggest issue with cross posting in my view, its the tendency for the thread to get fragmented when someone replies only to one of the lists.
+1
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by "Weston M. Price" <wp...@redhat.com>.
On Jan 18, 2013, at 12:51 PM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 01/18/2013 05:33 PM, Ted Ross wrote:
>> We either exclude people by sending to one list or, like this email, we
>> include all lists and everybody gets three copies.
>
> Its not the duplicate copies that are the biggest issue with cross posting in my view, its the tendency for the thread to get fragmented when someone replies only to one of the lists.
+1
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by "Weston M. Price" <wp...@redhat.com>.
On Jan 18, 2013, at 12:51 PM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 01/18/2013 05:33 PM, Ted Ross wrote:
>> We either exclude people by sending to one list or, like this email, we
>> include all lists and everybody gets three copies.
>
> Its not the duplicate copies that are the biggest issue with cross posting in my view, its the tendency for the thread to get fragmented when someone replies only to one of the lists.
+1
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 01/18/2013 05:33 PM, Ted Ross wrote:
> We either exclude people by sending to one list or, like this email, we
> include all lists and everybody gets three copies.
Its not the duplicate copies that are the biggest issue with cross
posting in my view, its the tendency for the thread to get fragmented
when someone replies only to one of the lists.
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 01/18/2013 05:33 PM, Ted Ross wrote:
> We either exclude people by sending to one list or, like this email, we
> include all lists and everybody gets three copies.
Its not the duplicate copies that are the biggest issue with cross
posting in my view, its the tendency for the thread to get fragmented
when someone replies only to one of the lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 01/18/2013 05:33 PM, Ted Ross wrote:
> We either exclude people by sending to one list or, like this email, we
> include all lists and everybody gets three copies.
Its not the duplicate copies that are the biggest issue with cross
posting in my view, its the tendency for the thread to get fragmented
when someone replies only to one of the lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Ted Ross <tr...@redhat.com>.
+1
I think this is a real problem and I would be supportive of
consolidating all of the discussion into one list. We either exclude
people by sending to one list or, like this email, we include all lists
and everybody gets three copies.
-Ted
On 01/18/2013 12:21 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing
> out on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
>
> Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list
> without reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list,
> keeping a large part of the community in the dark. Now that we have a
> distinct list for proton there is the possibility of yet more
> fragmentation.
>
> I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list for
> discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that cross-cut
> different components or that would benefit from wider participation.
> Not all topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is
> always going to be the case.
>
> It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume that
> this would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of subject
> could help people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I think
> do warrant their own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be avoided
> if so desired).
>
> Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged
> with unwanted emails?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Fraser Adams <fr...@blueyonder.co.uk>.
I totally agree with this view Gordon, I guess that's obvious as I
suspect your post was at least partly precipitated by my comments on
proton and how it relates to qpid.
I think that your comment about subject line filtering is a fair one and
agree about the Jira commit notices comment but I for one would find it
useful to see what's happening in the round. I guess to be fair I could
have subscribed to the dev list but that itself didn't seem obvious to
me given what I *mostly* do.
I think that having a single list also gives better sight of who the
"players" are and what their interests are in. As it happens it's
probably yourself who has the highest visibility out of the core Qpid
development team and I only see a few of the other names occasionally on
the users list. Clearly there are plenty of people beavering away in dev
land but I'm sure that there are a good few on this list who have
opinions on a fair range of topics - I know I have, especially around
QMF :-)
so definitely a +1 from me
On 18/01/13 17:21, Gordon Sim wrote:
> I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing
> out on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
>
> Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list
> without reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list,
> keeping a large part of the community in the dark. Now that we have a
> distinct list for proton there is the possibility of yet more
> fragmentation.
>
> I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list for
> discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that cross-cut
> different components or that would benefit from wider participation.
> Not all topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is
> always going to be the case.
>
> It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume that
> this would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of subject
> could help people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I think
> do warrant their own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be avoided
> if so desired).
>
> Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged
> with unwanted emails?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com>.
+1
On Fri, 2013-01-18 at 17:21 +0000, Gordon Sim wrote:
> I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing
> out on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
>
> Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list without
> reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a large
> part of the community in the dark. Now that we have a distinct list for
> proton there is the possibility of yet more fragmentation.
>
> I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list for
> discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that cross-cut
> different components or that would benefit from wider participation. Not
> all topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is always
> going to be the case.
>
> It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume that
> this would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of subject
> could help people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I think do
> warrant their own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be avoided if
> so desired).
>
> Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged with
> unwanted emails?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>.
I like the single list idea with subjects.
Carl.
On 01/18/2013 12:21 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing
> out on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
>
> Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list
> without reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list,
> keeping a large part of the community in the dark. Now that we have a
> distinct list for proton there is the possibility of yet more
> fragmentation.
>
> I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list for
> discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that cross-cut
> different components or that would benefit from wider participation.
> Not all topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is
> always going to be the case.
>
> It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume that
> this would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of subject
> could help people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I think
> do warrant their own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be avoided
> if so desired).
>
> Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged
> with unwanted emails?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by "Weston M. Price" <wp...@redhat.com>.
On Jan 18, 2013, at 2:19 PM, Darryl L. Pierce <dp...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 05:21:21PM +0000, Gordon Sim wrote:
>> <snip>
>> Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged
>> with unwanted emails?
>
> I think you're mostly right on this. In thinking about the split of
> lists, a project like Qpid doesn't really have a separate of users and
> developers; i.e., if you're a user of Qpid you're also a developer, not
> of Qpid but at least of some application that's consuming the Qpid APIs.
+1 Good point, never thought of it that way but makes a lot of sense to me.
>
> Given that, there's less value in dividing up conversations but,
> instead, keeping them in a single mailing list....
>
> --
> Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
> Delivering value year after year.
> Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
> http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by "Weston M. Price" <wp...@redhat.com>.
On Jan 18, 2013, at 2:19 PM, Darryl L. Pierce <dp...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 05:21:21PM +0000, Gordon Sim wrote:
>> <snip>
>> Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged
>> with unwanted emails?
>
> I think you're mostly right on this. In thinking about the split of
> lists, a project like Qpid doesn't really have a separate of users and
> developers; i.e., if you're a user of Qpid you're also a developer, not
> of Qpid but at least of some application that's consuming the Qpid APIs.
+1 Good point, never thought of it that way but makes a lot of sense to me.
>
> Given that, there's less value in dividing up conversations but,
> instead, keeping them in a single mailing list....
>
> --
> Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
> Delivering value year after year.
> Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
> http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by "Weston M. Price" <wp...@redhat.com>.
On Jan 18, 2013, at 2:19 PM, Darryl L. Pierce <dp...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 05:21:21PM +0000, Gordon Sim wrote:
>> <snip>
>> Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged
>> with unwanted emails?
>
> I think you're mostly right on this. In thinking about the split of
> lists, a project like Qpid doesn't really have a separate of users and
> developers; i.e., if you're a user of Qpid you're also a developer, not
> of Qpid but at least of some application that's consuming the Qpid APIs.
+1 Good point, never thought of it that way but makes a lot of sense to me.
>
> Given that, there's less value in dividing up conversations but,
> instead, keeping them in a single mailing list....
>
> --
> Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
> Delivering value year after year.
> Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
> http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
>
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by "Darryl L. Pierce" <dp...@redhat.com>.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 02:19:01PM -0500, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 05:21:21PM +0000, Gordon Sim wrote:
> ><snip>
> > Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged
> > with unwanted emails?
>
> I think you're mostly right on this. In thinking about the split of
> lists, a project like Qpid doesn't really have a separate of users and
> developers; i.e., if you're a user of Qpid you're also a developer, not
> of Qpid but at least of some application that's consuming the Qpid APIs.
>
> Given that, there's less value in dividing up conversations but,
> instead, keeping them in a single mailing list....
Sorry, I also meant to say that Qpid and Proton as well should be
collapsed into a single list, not just dev and user.
--
Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by "Darryl L. Pierce" <dp...@redhat.com>.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 02:19:01PM -0500, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 05:21:21PM +0000, Gordon Sim wrote:
> ><snip>
> > Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged
> > with unwanted emails?
>
> I think you're mostly right on this. In thinking about the split of
> lists, a project like Qpid doesn't really have a separate of users and
> developers; i.e., if you're a user of Qpid you're also a developer, not
> of Qpid but at least of some application that's consuming the Qpid APIs.
>
> Given that, there's less value in dividing up conversations but,
> instead, keeping them in a single mailing list....
Sorry, I also meant to say that Qpid and Proton as well should be
collapsed into a single list, not just dev and user.
--
Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by "Darryl L. Pierce" <dp...@redhat.com>.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 02:19:01PM -0500, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 05:21:21PM +0000, Gordon Sim wrote:
> ><snip>
> > Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged
> > with unwanted emails?
>
> I think you're mostly right on this. In thinking about the split of
> lists, a project like Qpid doesn't really have a separate of users and
> developers; i.e., if you're a user of Qpid you're also a developer, not
> of Qpid but at least of some application that's consuming the Qpid APIs.
>
> Given that, there's less value in dividing up conversations but,
> instead, keeping them in a single mailing list....
Sorry, I also meant to say that Qpid and Proton as well should be
collapsed into a single list, not just dev and user.
--
Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by "Darryl L. Pierce" <dp...@redhat.com>.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 05:21:21PM +0000, Gordon Sim wrote:
><snip>
> Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged
> with unwanted emails?
I think you're mostly right on this. In thinking about the split of
lists, a project like Qpid doesn't really have a separate of users and
developers; i.e., if you're a user of Qpid you're also a developer, not
of Qpid but at least of some application that's consuming the Qpid APIs.
Given that, there's less value in dividing up conversations but,
instead, keeping them in a single mailing list....
--
Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Paul O'Fallon <pa...@ofallonfamily.com>.
+1 - as someone new to both proton and qpid, it's helpful to have one place
to post questions and know they're being seen by the right folks.
Thanks!
- Paul
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I was one person who advocated for separate mailing lists in the past.
> But given what I have seen so far, I think you raise some very
> important concerns.
> I'm +1 on consolidating the lists provided we keep the commits/JIRA to
> a separate list.
>
> It seems a lot of "users" are not aware of proton or have the wrong
> impression about it.
> We need to make a prominent notice on our main website about proton
> and how it relates to Qpid etc..
> A common list should also make this task easier as we will increase
> our the audience for our discussions.
>
> Rajith
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing
> out on
> > valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
> >
> > Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list without
> > reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a large
> part
> > of the community in the dark. Now that we have a distinct list for proton
> > there is the possibility of yet more fragmentation.
> >
> > I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list for
> > discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that cross-cut
> > different components or that would benefit from wider participation. Not
> all
> > topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is always going
> to
> > be the case.
> >
> > It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume that
> this
> > would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of subject could help
> > people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I think do warrant
> their
> > own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be avoided if so desired).
> >
> > Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged with
> > unwanted emails?
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>.
I was one person who advocated for separate mailing lists in the past.
But given what I have seen so far, I think you raise some very
important concerns.
I'm +1 on consolidating the lists provided we keep the commits/JIRA to
a separate list.
It seems a lot of "users" are not aware of proton or have the wrong
impression about it.
We need to make a prominent notice on our main website about proton
and how it relates to Qpid etc..
A common list should also make this task easier as we will increase
our the audience for our discussions.
Rajith
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing out on
> valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
>
> Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list without
> reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a large part
> of the community in the dark. Now that we have a distinct list for proton
> there is the possibility of yet more fragmentation.
>
> I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list for
> discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that cross-cut
> different components or that would benefit from wider participation. Not all
> topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is always going to
> be the case.
>
> It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume that this
> would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of subject could help
> people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I think do warrant their
> own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be avoided if so desired).
>
> Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged with
> unwanted emails?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Ted Ross <tr...@redhat.com>.
+1
I think this is a real problem and I would be supportive of
consolidating all of the discussion into one list. We either exclude
people by sending to one list or, like this email, we include all lists
and everybody gets three copies.
-Ted
On 01/18/2013 12:21 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing
> out on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
>
> Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list
> without reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list,
> keeping a large part of the community in the dark. Now that we have a
> distinct list for proton there is the possibility of yet more
> fragmentation.
>
> I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list for
> discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that cross-cut
> different components or that would benefit from wider participation.
> Not all topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is
> always going to be the case.
>
> It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume that
> this would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of subject
> could help people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I think
> do warrant their own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be avoided
> if so desired).
>
> Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged
> with unwanted emails?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by "Darryl L. Pierce" <dp...@redhat.com>.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 05:21:21PM +0000, Gordon Sim wrote:
><snip>
> Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged
> with unwanted emails?
I think you're mostly right on this. In thinking about the split of
lists, a project like Qpid doesn't really have a separate of users and
developers; i.e., if you're a user of Qpid you're also a developer, not
of Qpid but at least of some application that's consuming the Qpid APIs.
Given that, there's less value in dividing up conversations but,
instead, keeping them in a single mailing list....
--
Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 01/21/2013 01:14 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 01/21/2013 11:43 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>> I think users@ and dev@ should be left as is, and that we potentially
>> just
>> adjust how we use them slightly.
>
> That is fine with me. I'm really just hoping to nudge more of the
> conversation emails onto the user list for wider visibility as I think
> that will be generally beneficial (while not being a panacea for any
> specific issue or indeed for the need for better communication in general).
From the website:
The user's list is for discussions that relate to use or questions
on Qpid. If you have questions about how a feature works,
suggestions on additional requirements, or general questions about
Qpid please use this list.
and:
The developer's list is for discussions that relate to the on going
development of Qpid. If you have questions about how a feature is
being developed, suggestions on how to implement a new feature, or
requests for a new feature this is the list to use.
So, I guess being more specific, I'm saying that I think suggestions on
how to implement a new feature or questions (and discussions) on new
features being developed would actually be better directed to the user list.
I certainly don't want to spam user with unwanted emails, but the volume
historically has not been that high and I suspect that doing so will
give users a greater sense of awareness of what's coming down the line
(yes, we should be better at communicating that through more formal
roadmaps etc, but this would at least alleviate our current failings)
and would result in wider input into design questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 21 January 2013 13:14, Gordon Sim <go...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/21/2013 11:43 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
>> I don't think that list being separate is the main source of most of the
>> confusion with proton.
>>
>
> I agree and was not suggesting that it was.
Sorry, I didnt really mean to imply you were suggesting that it was (or
that it was part of your motivation), I just felt that it had been
suggested. I was just being lazy and replying to / giving my thoughts on
the entire thread in one email.
> I do however think that had past conversations on both the proton and dev
> lists been more visible then the community as a whole would have a better
> view of what was happening and any questions would get asked earlier
> forcing them to be dealt with earlier.
>
Agreed
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 01/21/2013 01:14 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 01/21/2013 11:43 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>> I think users@ and dev@ should be left as is, and that we potentially
>> just
>> adjust how we use them slightly.
>
> That is fine with me. I'm really just hoping to nudge more of the
> conversation emails onto the user list for wider visibility as I think
> that will be generally beneficial (while not being a panacea for any
> specific issue or indeed for the need for better communication in general).
From the website:
The user's list is for discussions that relate to use or questions
on Qpid. If you have questions about how a feature works,
suggestions on additional requirements, or general questions about
Qpid please use this list.
and:
The developer's list is for discussions that relate to the on going
development of Qpid. If you have questions about how a feature is
being developed, suggestions on how to implement a new feature, or
requests for a new feature this is the list to use.
So, I guess being more specific, I'm saying that I think suggestions on
how to implement a new feature or questions (and discussions) on new
features being developed would actually be better directed to the user list.
I certainly don't want to spam user with unwanted emails, but the volume
historically has not been that high and I suspect that doing so will
give users a greater sense of awareness of what's coming down the line
(yes, we should be better at communicating that through more formal
roadmaps etc, but this would at least alleviate our current failings)
and would result in wider input into design questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 01/21/2013 01:14 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 01/21/2013 11:43 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>> I think users@ and dev@ should be left as is, and that we potentially
>> just
>> adjust how we use them slightly.
>
> That is fine with me. I'm really just hoping to nudge more of the
> conversation emails onto the user list for wider visibility as I think
> that will be generally beneficial (while not being a panacea for any
> specific issue or indeed for the need for better communication in general).
From the website:
The user's list is for discussions that relate to use or questions
on Qpid. If you have questions about how a feature works,
suggestions on additional requirements, or general questions about
Qpid please use this list.
and:
The developer's list is for discussions that relate to the on going
development of Qpid. If you have questions about how a feature is
being developed, suggestions on how to implement a new feature, or
requests for a new feature this is the list to use.
So, I guess being more specific, I'm saying that I think suggestions on
how to implement a new feature or questions (and discussions) on new
features being developed would actually be better directed to the user list.
I certainly don't want to spam user with unwanted emails, but the volume
historically has not been that high and I suspect that doing so will
give users a greater sense of awareness of what's coming down the line
(yes, we should be better at communicating that through more formal
roadmaps etc, but this would at least alleviate our current failings)
and would result in wider input into design questions.
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 21 January 2013 13:14, Gordon Sim <go...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/21/2013 11:43 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
>> I don't think that list being separate is the main source of most of the
>> confusion with proton.
>>
>
> I agree and was not suggesting that it was.
Sorry, I didnt really mean to imply you were suggesting that it was (or
that it was part of your motivation), I just felt that it had been
suggested. I was just being lazy and replying to / giving my thoughts on
the entire thread in one email.
> I do however think that had past conversations on both the proton and dev
> lists been more visible then the community as a whole would have a better
> view of what was happening and any questions would get asked earlier
> forcing them to be dealt with earlier.
>
Agreed
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 21 January 2013 13:14, Gordon Sim <go...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/21/2013 11:43 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
>> I don't think that list being separate is the main source of most of the
>> confusion with proton.
>>
>
> I agree and was not suggesting that it was.
Sorry, I didnt really mean to imply you were suggesting that it was (or
that it was part of your motivation), I just felt that it had been
suggested. I was just being lazy and replying to / giving my thoughts on
the entire thread in one email.
> I do however think that had past conversations on both the proton and dev
> lists been more visible then the community as a whole would have a better
> view of what was happening and any questions would get asked earlier
> forcing them to be dealt with earlier.
>
Agreed
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Gordon Sim <go...@gmail.com>.
On 01/21/2013 11:43 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> I don't think that list being separate is the main source of most of the
> confusion with proton.
I agree and was not suggesting that it was. I do however think that had
past conversations on both the proton and dev lists been more visible
then the community as a whole would have a better view of what was
happening and any questions would get asked earlier forcing them to be
dealt with earlier.
What prompted this thread was the observation that communication was
more fragmented than in my view it needed to be, not that this was the
cause or solution to any specific point or issue. That is actually
something I have felt for a while and not at all specifically with
regard to proton. Recent email threads somehow just pushed me from
thinking about it to voicing my thoughts out loud.
> People have asked roughly the same basic questions
> about proton on users@ and proton@ at roughly the same time, which did
> indeed mean certain discussion with answers might have only gone to one of
> the lists at a time, but the key point for me was that they had to ask
> those basic questions on either list in the first place.
>
> We are talking about improving communication, and for me the main problem
> is often that information isn't being written down or sent to any of the
> lists until someone asks a question requiring it. That question typically
> gets met with a [large] email explaining the answer, but much of the time
> it should be possible for the response to just be a link to somewhere the
> answer is already written down in general, e.g the website, with perhaps
> some context-specific additions. Some website update stats would probably
> entertaining right about now for example.
I think the website is indeed a problem area for the project. It does
tend to get stale and has never been particularly comprehensive. I think
the addition of proton (and indeed the move to AMQP 1.0) is a
significant enough change that the overall structure needs some thought.
[...]
> I think users@ and dev@ should be left as is, and that we potentially just
> adjust how we use them slightly.
That is fine with me. I'm really just hoping to nudge more of the
conversation emails onto the user list for wider visibility as I think
that will be generally beneficial (while not being a panacea for any
specific issue or indeed for the need for better communication in general).
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Gordon Sim <go...@gmail.com>.
On 01/21/2013 11:43 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> I don't think that list being separate is the main source of most of the
> confusion with proton.
I agree and was not suggesting that it was. I do however think that had
past conversations on both the proton and dev lists been more visible
then the community as a whole would have a better view of what was
happening and any questions would get asked earlier forcing them to be
dealt with earlier.
What prompted this thread was the observation that communication was
more fragmented than in my view it needed to be, not that this was the
cause or solution to any specific point or issue. That is actually
something I have felt for a while and not at all specifically with
regard to proton. Recent email threads somehow just pushed me from
thinking about it to voicing my thoughts out loud.
> People have asked roughly the same basic questions
> about proton on users@ and proton@ at roughly the same time, which did
> indeed mean certain discussion with answers might have only gone to one of
> the lists at a time, but the key point for me was that they had to ask
> those basic questions on either list in the first place.
>
> We are talking about improving communication, and for me the main problem
> is often that information isn't being written down or sent to any of the
> lists until someone asks a question requiring it. That question typically
> gets met with a [large] email explaining the answer, but much of the time
> it should be possible for the response to just be a link to somewhere the
> answer is already written down in general, e.g the website, with perhaps
> some context-specific additions. Some website update stats would probably
> entertaining right about now for example.
I think the website is indeed a problem area for the project. It does
tend to get stale and has never been particularly comprehensive. I think
the addition of proton (and indeed the move to AMQP 1.0) is a
significant enough change that the overall structure needs some thought.
[...]
> I think users@ and dev@ should be left as is, and that we potentially just
> adjust how we use them slightly.
That is fine with me. I'm really just hoping to nudge more of the
conversation emails onto the user list for wider visibility as I think
that will be generally beneficial (while not being a panacea for any
specific issue or indeed for the need for better communication in general).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Gordon Sim <go...@gmail.com>.
On 01/21/2013 11:43 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> I don't think that list being separate is the main source of most of the
> confusion with proton.
I agree and was not suggesting that it was. I do however think that had
past conversations on both the proton and dev lists been more visible
then the community as a whole would have a better view of what was
happening and any questions would get asked earlier forcing them to be
dealt with earlier.
What prompted this thread was the observation that communication was
more fragmented than in my view it needed to be, not that this was the
cause or solution to any specific point or issue. That is actually
something I have felt for a while and not at all specifically with
regard to proton. Recent email threads somehow just pushed me from
thinking about it to voicing my thoughts out loud.
> People have asked roughly the same basic questions
> about proton on users@ and proton@ at roughly the same time, which did
> indeed mean certain discussion with answers might have only gone to one of
> the lists at a time, but the key point for me was that they had to ask
> those basic questions on either list in the first place.
>
> We are talking about improving communication, and for me the main problem
> is often that information isn't being written down or sent to any of the
> lists until someone asks a question requiring it. That question typically
> gets met with a [large] email explaining the answer, but much of the time
> it should be possible for the response to just be a link to somewhere the
> answer is already written down in general, e.g the website, with perhaps
> some context-specific additions. Some website update stats would probably
> entertaining right about now for example.
I think the website is indeed a problem area for the project. It does
tend to get stale and has never been particularly comprehensive. I think
the addition of proton (and indeed the move to AMQP 1.0) is a
significant enough change that the overall structure needs some thought.
[...]
> I think users@ and dev@ should be left as is, and that we potentially just
> adjust how we use them slightly.
That is fine with me. I'm really just hoping to nudge more of the
conversation emails onto the user list for wider visibility as I think
that will be generally beneficial (while not being a panacea for any
specific issue or indeed for the need for better communication in general).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 21 January 2013 12:43, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm happy enough with the idea of collapsing proton@ given that Protons
> scope is in some ways wider than when it started out (where the very
> specific protocol library made a good case for a separate list), but I
> don't think that list being separate is the main source of most of the
> confusion with proton. People have asked roughly the same basic questions
> about proton on users@ and proton@ at roughly the same time, which did
> indeed mean certain discussion with answers might have only gone to one of
> the lists at a time, but the key point for me was that they had to ask
> those basic questions on either list in the first place.
>
>
+1
> We are talking about improving communication, and for me the main problem
> is often that information isn't being written down or sent to any of the
> lists until someone asks a question requiring it. That question typically
> gets met with a [large] email explaining the answer, but much of the time
> it should be possible for the response to just be a link to somewhere the
> answer is already written down in general, e.g the website, with perhaps
> some context-specific additions. Some website update stats would probably
> entertaining right about now for example.
>
>
Completely agreed (and hands up to not personally having updated the
website in ages).
> I think users@ and dev@ should be left as is, and that we potentially just
> adjust how we use them slightly. These lists have existed for several
> years, and its the structure almost every Apache project works away just
> fine with; I don't think we are all that special in this regard. I also
> don't think we should subscribe everyone to a bunch of traffic they didn't
> sign up for. That said, this doesn't mean developers actually need to post
> discussion mails to dev@, the users@ list is always there and I know
> Gordon
> at least often posts only to that if it is a user related discussion, and I
> think that approach works well enough if others were to use it. The dev@
> list can continue at least to hold things like the JIRA traffic (I could
> see ReviewBoard postings going to either list), even if general discussion
> moves to the users@ list.
>
>
Personally I'd have JIRAs and ReviewBoards on dev and make sure everything
else was on users. However I agree with your main point that it's not the
multitude of mailing lists that is necessarily the issue... it's the fact
that information isn't available *anywhere* :-)
> Summarising, I agree we need to be better at communicating, I think a bit
> of mailing list adjustment would be a good thing where proton@ could go
> and
> dev@ should stay in some guise, but that there are other problems with our
> communication that reducing the number of mailing lists potentially does
> little to solve.
>
>
Agreed,
Rob
> Robbie
>
>
> On 18 January 2013 17:21, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing out
> > on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
> >
> > Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list without
> > reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a large
> > part of the community in the dark. Now that we have a distinct list for
> > proton there is the possibility of yet more fragmentation.
> >
> > I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list for
> > discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that cross-cut
> > different components or that would benefit from wider participation. Not
> > all topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is always
> going
> > to be the case.
> >
> > It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume that
> > this would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of subject could
> > help people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I think do warrant
> > their own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be avoided if so
> desired).
> >
> > Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged with
> > unwanted emails?
> >
> > ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.**org<
> users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 21 January 2013 12:43, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm happy enough with the idea of collapsing proton@ given that Protons
> scope is in some ways wider than when it started out (where the very
> specific protocol library made a good case for a separate list), but I
> don't think that list being separate is the main source of most of the
> confusion with proton. People have asked roughly the same basic questions
> about proton on users@ and proton@ at roughly the same time, which did
> indeed mean certain discussion with answers might have only gone to one of
> the lists at a time, but the key point for me was that they had to ask
> those basic questions on either list in the first place.
>
>
+1
> We are talking about improving communication, and for me the main problem
> is often that information isn't being written down or sent to any of the
> lists until someone asks a question requiring it. That question typically
> gets met with a [large] email explaining the answer, but much of the time
> it should be possible for the response to just be a link to somewhere the
> answer is already written down in general, e.g the website, with perhaps
> some context-specific additions. Some website update stats would probably
> entertaining right about now for example.
>
>
Completely agreed (and hands up to not personally having updated the
website in ages).
> I think users@ and dev@ should be left as is, and that we potentially just
> adjust how we use them slightly. These lists have existed for several
> years, and its the structure almost every Apache project works away just
> fine with; I don't think we are all that special in this regard. I also
> don't think we should subscribe everyone to a bunch of traffic they didn't
> sign up for. That said, this doesn't mean developers actually need to post
> discussion mails to dev@, the users@ list is always there and I know
> Gordon
> at least often posts only to that if it is a user related discussion, and I
> think that approach works well enough if others were to use it. The dev@
> list can continue at least to hold things like the JIRA traffic (I could
> see ReviewBoard postings going to either list), even if general discussion
> moves to the users@ list.
>
>
Personally I'd have JIRAs and ReviewBoards on dev and make sure everything
else was on users. However I agree with your main point that it's not the
multitude of mailing lists that is necessarily the issue... it's the fact
that information isn't available *anywhere* :-)
> Summarising, I agree we need to be better at communicating, I think a bit
> of mailing list adjustment would be a good thing where proton@ could go
> and
> dev@ should stay in some guise, but that there are other problems with our
> communication that reducing the number of mailing lists potentially does
> little to solve.
>
>
Agreed,
Rob
> Robbie
>
>
> On 18 January 2013 17:21, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing out
> > on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
> >
> > Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list without
> > reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a large
> > part of the community in the dark. Now that we have a distinct list for
> > proton there is the possibility of yet more fragmentation.
> >
> > I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list for
> > discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that cross-cut
> > different components or that would benefit from wider participation. Not
> > all topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is always
> going
> > to be the case.
> >
> > It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume that
> > this would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of subject could
> > help people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I think do warrant
> > their own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be avoided if so
> desired).
> >
> > Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged with
> > unwanted emails?
> >
> > ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.**org<
> users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 21 January 2013 12:43, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm happy enough with the idea of collapsing proton@ given that Protons
> scope is in some ways wider than when it started out (where the very
> specific protocol library made a good case for a separate list), but I
> don't think that list being separate is the main source of most of the
> confusion with proton. People have asked roughly the same basic questions
> about proton on users@ and proton@ at roughly the same time, which did
> indeed mean certain discussion with answers might have only gone to one of
> the lists at a time, but the key point for me was that they had to ask
> those basic questions on either list in the first place.
>
>
+1
> We are talking about improving communication, and for me the main problem
> is often that information isn't being written down or sent to any of the
> lists until someone asks a question requiring it. That question typically
> gets met with a [large] email explaining the answer, but much of the time
> it should be possible for the response to just be a link to somewhere the
> answer is already written down in general, e.g the website, with perhaps
> some context-specific additions. Some website update stats would probably
> entertaining right about now for example.
>
>
Completely agreed (and hands up to not personally having updated the
website in ages).
> I think users@ and dev@ should be left as is, and that we potentially just
> adjust how we use them slightly. These lists have existed for several
> years, and its the structure almost every Apache project works away just
> fine with; I don't think we are all that special in this regard. I also
> don't think we should subscribe everyone to a bunch of traffic they didn't
> sign up for. That said, this doesn't mean developers actually need to post
> discussion mails to dev@, the users@ list is always there and I know
> Gordon
> at least often posts only to that if it is a user related discussion, and I
> think that approach works well enough if others were to use it. The dev@
> list can continue at least to hold things like the JIRA traffic (I could
> see ReviewBoard postings going to either list), even if general discussion
> moves to the users@ list.
>
>
Personally I'd have JIRAs and ReviewBoards on dev and make sure everything
else was on users. However I agree with your main point that it's not the
multitude of mailing lists that is necessarily the issue... it's the fact
that information isn't available *anywhere* :-)
> Summarising, I agree we need to be better at communicating, I think a bit
> of mailing list adjustment would be a good thing where proton@ could go
> and
> dev@ should stay in some guise, but that there are other problems with our
> communication that reducing the number of mailing lists potentially does
> little to solve.
>
>
Agreed,
Rob
> Robbie
>
>
> On 18 January 2013 17:21, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing out
> > on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
> >
> > Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list without
> > reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a large
> > part of the community in the dark. Now that we have a distinct list for
> > proton there is the possibility of yet more fragmentation.
> >
> > I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list for
> > discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that cross-cut
> > different components or that would benefit from wider participation. Not
> > all topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is always
> going
> > to be the case.
> >
> > It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume that
> > this would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of subject could
> > help people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I think do warrant
> > their own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be avoided if so
> desired).
> >
> > Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged with
> > unwanted emails?
> >
> > ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.**org<
> users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
I'm happy enough with the idea of collapsing proton@ given that Protons
scope is in some ways wider than when it started out (where the very
specific protocol library made a good case for a separate list), but I
don't think that list being separate is the main source of most of the
confusion with proton. People have asked roughly the same basic questions
about proton on users@ and proton@ at roughly the same time, which did
indeed mean certain discussion with answers might have only gone to one of
the lists at a time, but the key point for me was that they had to ask
those basic questions on either list in the first place.
We are talking about improving communication, and for me the main problem
is often that information isn't being written down or sent to any of the
lists until someone asks a question requiring it. That question typically
gets met with a [large] email explaining the answer, but much of the time
it should be possible for the response to just be a link to somewhere the
answer is already written down in general, e.g the website, with perhaps
some context-specific additions. Some website update stats would probably
entertaining right about now for example.
I think users@ and dev@ should be left as is, and that we potentially just
adjust how we use them slightly. These lists have existed for several
years, and its the structure almost every Apache project works away just
fine with; I don't think we are all that special in this regard. I also
don't think we should subscribe everyone to a bunch of traffic they didn't
sign up for. That said, this doesn't mean developers actually need to post
discussion mails to dev@, the users@ list is always there and I know Gordon
at least often posts only to that if it is a user related discussion, and I
think that approach works well enough if others were to use it. The dev@
list can continue at least to hold things like the JIRA traffic (I could
see ReviewBoard postings going to either list), even if general discussion
moves to the users@ list.
Summarising, I agree we need to be better at communicating, I think a bit
of mailing list adjustment would be a good thing where proton@ could go and
dev@ should stay in some guise, but that there are other problems with our
communication that reducing the number of mailing lists potentially does
little to solve.
Robbie
On 18 January 2013 17:21, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing out
> on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
>
> Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list without
> reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a large
> part of the community in the dark. Now that we have a distinct list for
> proton there is the possibility of yet more fragmentation.
>
> I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list for
> discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that cross-cut
> different components or that would benefit from wider participation. Not
> all topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is always going
> to be the case.
>
> It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume that
> this would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of subject could
> help people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I think do warrant
> their own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be avoided if so desired).
>
> Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged with
> unwanted emails?
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.**org<us...@qpid.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by "Darryl L. Pierce" <dp...@redhat.com>.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 05:21:21PM +0000, Gordon Sim wrote:
><snip>
> Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged
> with unwanted emails?
I think you're mostly right on this. In thinking about the split of
lists, a project like Qpid doesn't really have a separate of users and
developers; i.e., if you're a user of Qpid you're also a developer, not
of Qpid but at least of some application that's consuming the Qpid APIs.
Given that, there's less value in dividing up conversations but,
instead, keeping them in a single mailing list....
--
Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
Re: summary/conclusion (was Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication)
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 01/21/2013 04:04 PM, Justin Ross wrote:
> Finally, forgetting all this, the*first* thing I would change is jira
> traffic going to dev. I consider it strictly detrimental.
Yes, I tend to agree it would be nicer to have a distinct lists for
that, as for commits.
> My dream scheme:
>
> discussion@qpid.apache.org - human beings talking about qpid
> commits@qpid.apache.org - [no change]
> issues@qpid.apache.org - all jira traffic
> tests@qpid.apache.org - all jenkins and other automated test traffic
That pretty much is how I mentally picture the different types of traffic!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: summary/conclusion (was Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication)
Posted by Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>.
+1
Rajith
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Justin Ross <jr...@apache.org> wrote:
> For me, Gordon's stated summary is the best argument for one
> discussion list. The users/dev split is conventional, but it is not
> particularly good for our project. For one, the user/developer
> distinction is fuzzier for us than it is for many other projects. For
> two, the kind of content that Gordon has been posting (and will
> continue posting) to users is more conventionally posted to dev lists
> in other projects. I consider that a bad situation, because folks
> seeking, for instance, technical roadmap info could easily end up
> missing it because they're on the dev list, not the users list.
>
> Generally speaking, I think it's useful to introduce distinct lists
> (for users/dev and for components like proton) only if there is too
> much volume. I don't think we're there yet.
>
> Finally, forgetting all this, the *first* thing I would change is jira
> traffic going to dev. I consider it strictly detrimental.
>
> My dream scheme:
>
> discussion@qpid.apache.org - human beings talking about qpid
> commits@qpid.apache.org - [no change]
> issues@qpid.apache.org - all jira traffic
> tests@qpid.apache.org - all jenkins and other automated test traffic
>
> Thanks for hearing me out!
> Justin
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> I'm going to suggest that we leave all the lists in place for now, and leave
>> the choice of list to individual discretion.
>>
>> For my part however I will be focusing on the user list, which I see as a
>> community wide list for anyone with an interest at AMQP related software at
>> Apache. I would encourage people to only use other lists if they are
>> convinced this is too wide an audience for their thread.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: summary/conclusion (was Re: mailing lists and fragmented
communication)
Posted by Andrew Stitcher <as...@redhat.com>.
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 11:04 -0500, Justin Ross wrote:
> My dream scheme:
>
> discussion@qpid.apache.org - human beings talking about qpid
> commits@qpid.apache.org - [no change]
> issues@qpid.apache.org - all jira traffic
> tests@qpid.apache.org - all jenkins and other automated test traffic
I wholeheartedly agree with this division.
[Perhaps you should have cross posted to all the mailing lists?!]
Andrew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: summary/conclusion (was Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication)
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 01/21/2013 06:31 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> In what sense are we special in our user/developer distinction? I can't
> really think of anything to particularly support that.
I don't know that we are special in anyway. I do think we are not great
at proactively communicating, and that while I would want to improve in
that, having more of the conversations that do take place visible to
users is in my view a good thing.
> In terms of JIRA traffic going to dev, actually I consider it detrimental
> that everyone filters JIRAs off and never bothers to actually look at JIRA.
> Patches continually sit on JIRAs for weeks/months/years before anyone picks
> them up (e.g when I send out an email moaning about how many hundred open
> JIRAs we have, or how many open JIRAs are assigned to already-released
> versions, at a particular point in time) as so many people clearly never
> bother looking at JIRA.
I agree, but I think that happens. Ultimately the solution there is
probably some sort of component owner system as suggested by Alan (and
I'm sure other in the past).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: summary/conclusion (was Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication)
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 21 January 2013 19:35, Justin Ross <jr...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Robbie Gemmell
> <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In what sense are we special in our user/developer distinction? I can't
> > really think of anything to particularly support that.
>
> Not to make too much of it, but many of our users are themselves
> developers. They can understand and transition to straight up Qpid
> development with relative ease.
>
I can see what you are saying there though I think that is actually true
for a lot of projects, perhaps even the majority of those at the ASF for
example.
> Also, For most projects, in my experience, the users list is primarily
> for people seeking help. It's quite atypical to hold roadmap
> discussions on users lists.
>
> > In terms of JIRA traffic going to dev, actually I consider it detrimental
> > that everyone filters JIRAs off and never bothers to actually look at
> JIRA.
> > Patches continually sit on JIRAs for weeks/months/years before anyone
> picks
> > them up (e.g when I send out an email moaning about how many hundred open
> > JIRAs we have, or how many open JIRAs are assigned to already-released
> > versions, at a particular point in time) as so many people clearly never
> > bother looking at JIRA. That said, I do agree that such traffic shouldnt
> [snip]
>
> The moaning is of course completely justified. I don't, however,
> think that the experiment of addressing this problem by sending jira
> traffic to the devel list has succeeded.
>
I'm not sure I would call it an experiment given its always been that way
and its what many projects do given it is generally directly related to
development, but I can at least acknowledge that some projects do separate
JIRA traffic from their dev@ and user@ lists.
If we are intending to move most development related discussion away from
dev@ then I would probably just leave the existing list in place with the
JIRA traffic continuing to be directed at it, as asking the volunteer staff
to make new lists and update the various pieces to basically do the same
thing with a new name seems unnecessary (not to mention requiring everyone
update their subscriptions and/or filters).
> > If we were to make a new general discussion list (replacing users@ and
> > adding ddeelopment discussion) then discuss@ seems reasonable to me,
> but I
> > think the other things are served equally well by whats already here
> now. I
> > seem to recall picking notifications@ for the Jenkins emails because I
> read
> > previous mailing lsit creation requests where infra had pushed back on
> > other projects wanting myothername@ for their lists to be used for the
> same
> > purpose.
>
> I think notifications@ is fine.
>
> Justin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>
Re: summary/conclusion (was Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication)
Posted by Justin Ross <jr...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Robbie Gemmell
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In what sense are we special in our user/developer distinction? I can't
> really think of anything to particularly support that.
Not to make too much of it, but many of our users are themselves
developers. They can understand and transition to straight up Qpid
development with relative ease.
Also, For most projects, in my experience, the users list is primarily
for people seeking help. It's quite atypical to hold roadmap
discussions on users lists.
> In terms of JIRA traffic going to dev, actually I consider it detrimental
> that everyone filters JIRAs off and never bothers to actually look at JIRA.
> Patches continually sit on JIRAs for weeks/months/years before anyone picks
> them up (e.g when I send out an email moaning about how many hundred open
> JIRAs we have, or how many open JIRAs are assigned to already-released
> versions, at a particular point in time) as so many people clearly never
> bother looking at JIRA. That said, I do agree that such traffic shouldnt
[snip]
The moaning is of course completely justified. I don't, however,
think that the experiment of addressing this problem by sending jira
traffic to the devel list has succeeded.
> If we were to make a new general discussion list (replacing users@ and
> adding ddeelopment discussion) then discuss@ seems reasonable to me, but I
> think the other things are served equally well by whats already here now. I
> seem to recall picking notifications@ for the Jenkins emails because I read
> previous mailing lsit creation requests where infra had pushed back on
> other projects wanting myothername@ for their lists to be used for the same
> purpose.
I think notifications@ is fine.
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: summary/conclusion (was Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication)
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
In what sense are we special in our user/developer distinction? I can't
really think of anything to particularly support that.
In terms of JIRA traffic going to dev, actually I consider it detrimental
that everyone filters JIRAs off and never bothers to actually look at JIRA.
Patches continually sit on JIRAs for weeks/months/years before anyone picks
them up (e.g when I send out an email moaning about how many hundred open
JIRAs we have, or how many open JIRAs are assigned to already-released
versions, at a particular point in time) as so many people clearly never
bother looking at JIRA. That said, I do agree that such traffic shouldnt go
to the same mailing list we inteded as the primary non-JIRA path for users
to be posting discussion on, so I guess that nullifies the issue (no pun
intended) if we were to do away with dev@.
If we were to make a new general discussion list (replacing users@ and
adding ddeelopment discussion) then discuss@ seems reasonable to me, but I
think the other things are served equally well by whats already here now. I
seem to recall picking notifications@ for the Jenkins emails because I read
previous mailing lsit creation requests where infra had pushed back on
other projects wanting myothername@ for their lists to be used for the same
purpose.
Robbie
On 21 January 2013 16:04, Justin Ross <jr...@apache.org> wrote:
> For me, Gordon's stated summary is the best argument for one
> discussion list. The users/dev split is conventional, but it is not
> particularly good for our project. For one, the user/developer
> distinction is fuzzier for us than it is for many other projects. For
> two, the kind of content that Gordon has been posting (and will
> continue posting) to users is more conventionally posted to dev lists
> in other projects. I consider that a bad situation, because folks
> seeking, for instance, technical roadmap info could easily end up
> missing it because they're on the dev list, not the users list.
>
> Generally speaking, I think it's useful to introduce distinct lists
> (for users/dev and for components like proton) only if there is too
> much volume. I don't think we're there yet.
>
> Finally, forgetting all this, the *first* thing I would change is jira
> traffic going to dev. I consider it strictly detrimental.
>
> My dream scheme:
>
> discussion@qpid.apache.org - human beings talking about qpid
> commits@qpid.apache.org - [no change]
> issues@qpid.apache.org - all jira traffic
> tests@qpid.apache.org - all jenkins and other automated test traffic
>
> Thanks for hearing me out!
> Justin
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > I'm going to suggest that we leave all the lists in place for now, and
> leave
> > the choice of list to individual discretion.
> >
> > For my part however I will be focusing on the user list, which I see as a
> > community wide list for anyone with an interest at AMQP related software
> at
> > Apache. I would encourage people to only use other lists if they are
> > convinced this is too wide an audience for their thread.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>
Re: summary/conclusion (was Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication)
Posted by Justin Ross <jr...@apache.org>.
For me, Gordon's stated summary is the best argument for one
discussion list. The users/dev split is conventional, but it is not
particularly good for our project. For one, the user/developer
distinction is fuzzier for us than it is for many other projects. For
two, the kind of content that Gordon has been posting (and will
continue posting) to users is more conventionally posted to dev lists
in other projects. I consider that a bad situation, because folks
seeking, for instance, technical roadmap info could easily end up
missing it because they're on the dev list, not the users list.
Generally speaking, I think it's useful to introduce distinct lists
(for users/dev and for components like proton) only if there is too
much volume. I don't think we're there yet.
Finally, forgetting all this, the *first* thing I would change is jira
traffic going to dev. I consider it strictly detrimental.
My dream scheme:
discussion@qpid.apache.org - human beings talking about qpid
commits@qpid.apache.org - [no change]
issues@qpid.apache.org - all jira traffic
tests@qpid.apache.org - all jenkins and other automated test traffic
Thanks for hearing me out!
Justin
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> I'm going to suggest that we leave all the lists in place for now, and leave
> the choice of list to individual discretion.
>
> For my part however I will be focusing on the user list, which I see as a
> community wide list for anyone with an interest at AMQP related software at
> Apache. I would encourage people to only use other lists if they are
> convinced this is too wide an audience for their thread.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
summary/conclusion (was Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication)
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
I'm going to suggest that we leave all the lists in place for now, and
leave the choice of list to individual discretion.
For my part however I will be focusing on the user list, which I see as
a community wide list for anyone with an interest at AMQP related
software at Apache. I would encourage people to only use other lists if
they are convinced this is too wide an audience for their thread.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
I'm happy enough with the idea of collapsing proton@ given that Protons
scope is in some ways wider than when it started out (where the very
specific protocol library made a good case for a separate list), but I
don't think that list being separate is the main source of most of the
confusion with proton. People have asked roughly the same basic questions
about proton on users@ and proton@ at roughly the same time, which did
indeed mean certain discussion with answers might have only gone to one of
the lists at a time, but the key point for me was that they had to ask
those basic questions on either list in the first place.
We are talking about improving communication, and for me the main problem
is often that information isn't being written down or sent to any of the
lists until someone asks a question requiring it. That question typically
gets met with a [large] email explaining the answer, but much of the time
it should be possible for the response to just be a link to somewhere the
answer is already written down in general, e.g the website, with perhaps
some context-specific additions. Some website update stats would probably
entertaining right about now for example.
I think users@ and dev@ should be left as is, and that we potentially just
adjust how we use them slightly. These lists have existed for several
years, and its the structure almost every Apache project works away just
fine with; I don't think we are all that special in this regard. I also
don't think we should subscribe everyone to a bunch of traffic they didn't
sign up for. That said, this doesn't mean developers actually need to post
discussion mails to dev@, the users@ list is always there and I know Gordon
at least often posts only to that if it is a user related discussion, and I
think that approach works well enough if others were to use it. The dev@
list can continue at least to hold things like the JIRA traffic (I could
see ReviewBoard postings going to either list), even if general discussion
moves to the users@ list.
Summarising, I agree we need to be better at communicating, I think a bit
of mailing list adjustment would be a good thing where proton@ could go and
dev@ should stay in some guise, but that there are other problems with our
communication that reducing the number of mailing lists potentially does
little to solve.
Robbie
On 18 January 2013 17:21, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing out
> on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
>
> Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list without
> reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a large
> part of the community in the dark. Now that we have a distinct list for
> proton there is the possibility of yet more fragmentation.
>
> I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list for
> discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that cross-cut
> different components or that would benefit from wider participation. Not
> all topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is always going
> to be the case.
>
> It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume that
> this would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of subject could
> help people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I think do warrant
> their own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be avoided if so desired).
>
> Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged with
> unwanted emails?
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.**org<us...@qpid.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>
summary/conclusion (was Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication)
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
I'm going to suggest that we leave all the lists in place for now, and
leave the choice of list to individual discretion.
For my part however I will be focusing on the user list, which I see as
a community wide list for anyone with an interest at AMQP related
software at Apache. I would encourage people to only use other lists if
they are convinced this is too wide an audience for their thread.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Justin Ross <ju...@gmail.com>.
I'm one of those ordinary users on mailing lists for other projects,
and to me it's not a point of irritation seeing the developers at
work. Rather, I enjoy it. Of course, I must allow that our users may
not all feel the way I do.
Justin
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com> wrote:
> I agree that the qpid and proton users should be on the same list. Also, it's useful for much of the development info to be open to the users list. My only concern for a second list is for things that committers may need to talk about but which the larger user community doesn't care about. For example, "who broke the build" or questions/issues about the release process, etc.
>
> -Steve
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gordon Sim [mailto:gsim@redhat.com]
>> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 12:21 PM
>> To: users@qpid.apache.org; proton@qpid.apache.org; dev@qpid.apache.org
>> Subject: mailing lists and fragmented communication
>>
>> I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing out on
>> valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
>>
>> Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list without
>> reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a large part of
>> the community in the dark. Now that we have a distinct list for proton there
>> is the possibility of yet more fragmentation.
>>
>> I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list for
>> discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that cross-cut different
>> components or that would benefit from wider participation. Not all topics will
>> be of interest to all subscribers, but that is always going to be the case.
>>
>> It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume that this
>> would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of subject could help
>> people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I think do warrant their own
>> lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be avoided if so desired).
>>
>> Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged with
>> unwanted emails?
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org For additional
>> commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
RE: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com>.
Sounds good to me.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gordon Sim [mailto:gsim@redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 5:12 PM
> To: users@qpid.apache.org; proton@qpid.apache.org; dev@qpid.apache.org
> Subject: Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
>
> On 01/18/2013 06:55 PM, Steve Huston wrote:
> > I agree that the qpid and proton users should be on the same list.
> > Also, it's useful for much of the development info to be open to the
> > users list. My only concern for a second list is for things that
> > committers may need to talk about but which the larger user community
> > doesn't care about. For example, "who broke the build" or
> > questions/issues about the release process, etc.
>
> I sympathise with the concern, and certainly don't want to impose irrelevant
> emails on people.
>
> In practice I think the volume of messages is low and in my view at least,
> unlikely to be a serious nuisance.
>
> I do think that having wider awareness of and involvement in the release
> process would be a good thing for all of us. Sometimes even the 'who broke
> the build' type mails can convey what is coming down the road and allow
> users to comment or get involved earlier in the process.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org For additional
> commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
RE: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com>.
Sounds good to me.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gordon Sim [mailto:gsim@redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 5:12 PM
> To: users@qpid.apache.org; proton@qpid.apache.org; dev@qpid.apache.org
> Subject: Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
>
> On 01/18/2013 06:55 PM, Steve Huston wrote:
> > I agree that the qpid and proton users should be on the same list.
> > Also, it's useful for much of the development info to be open to the
> > users list. My only concern for a second list is for things that
> > committers may need to talk about but which the larger user community
> > doesn't care about. For example, "who broke the build" or
> > questions/issues about the release process, etc.
>
> I sympathise with the concern, and certainly don't want to impose irrelevant
> emails on people.
>
> In practice I think the volume of messages is low and in my view at least,
> unlikely to be a serious nuisance.
>
> I do think that having wider awareness of and involvement in the release
> process would be a good thing for all of us. Sometimes even the 'who broke
> the build' type mails can convey what is coming down the road and allow
> users to comment or get involved earlier in the process.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org For additional
> commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
RE: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com>.
Sounds good to me.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gordon Sim [mailto:gsim@redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 5:12 PM
> To: users@qpid.apache.org; proton@qpid.apache.org; dev@qpid.apache.org
> Subject: Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
>
> On 01/18/2013 06:55 PM, Steve Huston wrote:
> > I agree that the qpid and proton users should be on the same list.
> > Also, it's useful for much of the development info to be open to the
> > users list. My only concern for a second list is for things that
> > committers may need to talk about but which the larger user community
> > doesn't care about. For example, "who broke the build" or
> > questions/issues about the release process, etc.
>
> I sympathise with the concern, and certainly don't want to impose irrelevant
> emails on people.
>
> In practice I think the volume of messages is low and in my view at least,
> unlikely to be a serious nuisance.
>
> I do think that having wider awareness of and involvement in the release
> process would be a good thing for all of us. Sometimes even the 'who broke
> the build' type mails can convey what is coming down the road and allow
> users to comment or get involved earlier in the process.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org For additional
> commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 01/18/2013 06:55 PM, Steve Huston wrote:
> I agree that the qpid and proton users should be on the same list.
> Also, it's useful for much of the development info to be open to the
> users list. My only concern for a second list is for things that
> committers may need to talk about but which the larger user community
> doesn't care about. For example, "who broke the build" or
> questions/issues about the release process, etc.
I sympathise with the concern, and certainly don't want to impose
irrelevant emails on people.
In practice I think the volume of messages is low and in my view at
least, unlikely to be a serious nuisance.
I do think that having wider awareness of and involvement in the release
process would be a good thing for all of us. Sometimes even the 'who
broke the build' type mails can convey what is coming down the road and
allow users to comment or get involved earlier in the process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 01/18/2013 06:55 PM, Steve Huston wrote:
> I agree that the qpid and proton users should be on the same list.
> Also, it's useful for much of the development info to be open to the
> users list. My only concern for a second list is for things that
> committers may need to talk about but which the larger user community
> doesn't care about. For example, "who broke the build" or
> questions/issues about the release process, etc.
I sympathise with the concern, and certainly don't want to impose
irrelevant emails on people.
In practice I think the volume of messages is low and in my view at
least, unlikely to be a serious nuisance.
I do think that having wider awareness of and involvement in the release
process would be a good thing for all of us. Sometimes even the 'who
broke the build' type mails can convey what is coming down the road and
allow users to comment or get involved earlier in the process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 01/18/2013 06:55 PM, Steve Huston wrote:
> I agree that the qpid and proton users should be on the same list.
> Also, it's useful for much of the development info to be open to the
> users list. My only concern for a second list is for things that
> committers may need to talk about but which the larger user community
> doesn't care about. For example, "who broke the build" or
> questions/issues about the release process, etc.
I sympathise with the concern, and certainly don't want to impose
irrelevant emails on people.
In practice I think the volume of messages is low and in my view at
least, unlikely to be a serious nuisance.
I do think that having wider awareness of and involvement in the release
process would be a good thing for all of us. Sometimes even the 'who
broke the build' type mails can convey what is coming down the road and
allow users to comment or get involved earlier in the process.
RE: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com>.
I agree that the qpid and proton users should be on the same list. Also, it's useful for much of the development info to be open to the users list. My only concern for a second list is for things that committers may need to talk about but which the larger user community doesn't care about. For example, "who broke the build" or questions/issues about the release process, etc.
-Steve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gordon Sim [mailto:gsim@redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 12:21 PM
> To: users@qpid.apache.org; proton@qpid.apache.org; dev@qpid.apache.org
> Subject: mailing lists and fragmented communication
>
> I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing out on
> valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
>
> Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list without
> reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a large part of
> the community in the dark. Now that we have a distinct list for proton there
> is the possibility of yet more fragmentation.
>
> I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list for
> discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that cross-cut different
> components or that would benefit from wider participation. Not all topics will
> be of interest to all subscribers, but that is always going to be the case.
>
> It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume that this
> would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of subject could help
> people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I think do warrant their own
> lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be avoided if so desired).
>
> Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged with
> unwanted emails?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org For additional
> commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Ted Ross <tr...@redhat.com>.
+1
I think this is a real problem and I would be supportive of
consolidating all of the discussion into one list. We either exclude
people by sending to one list or, like this email, we include all lists
and everybody gets three copies.
-Ted
On 01/18/2013 12:21 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing
> out on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
>
> Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list
> without reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list,
> keeping a large part of the community in the dark. Now that we have a
> distinct list for proton there is the possibility of yet more
> fragmentation.
>
> I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list for
> discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that cross-cut
> different components or that would benefit from wider participation.
> Not all topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is
> always going to be the case.
>
> It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume that
> this would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of subject
> could help people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I think
> do warrant their own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be avoided
> if so desired).
>
> Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged
> with unwanted emails?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
RE: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com>.
I agree that the qpid and proton users should be on the same list. Also, it's useful for much of the development info to be open to the users list. My only concern for a second list is for things that committers may need to talk about but which the larger user community doesn't care about. For example, "who broke the build" or questions/issues about the release process, etc.
-Steve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gordon Sim [mailto:gsim@redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 12:21 PM
> To: users@qpid.apache.org; proton@qpid.apache.org; dev@qpid.apache.org
> Subject: mailing lists and fragmented communication
>
> I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing out on
> valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
>
> Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list without
> reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a large part of
> the community in the dark. Now that we have a distinct list for proton there
> is the possibility of yet more fragmentation.
>
> I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list for
> discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that cross-cut different
> components or that would benefit from wider participation. Not all topics will
> be of interest to all subscribers, but that is always going to be the case.
>
> It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume that this
> would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of subject could help
> people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I think do warrant their own
> lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be avoided if so desired).
>
> Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged with
> unwanted emails?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org For additional
> commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
summary/conclusion (was Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication)
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
I'm going to suggest that we leave all the lists in place for now, and
leave the choice of list to individual discretion.
For my part however I will be focusing on the user list, which I see as
a community wide list for anyone with an interest at AMQP related
software at Apache. I would encourage people to only use other lists if
they are convinced this is too wide an audience for their thread.
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
I'm happy enough with the idea of collapsing proton@ given that Protons
scope is in some ways wider than when it started out (where the very
specific protocol library made a good case for a separate list), but I
don't think that list being separate is the main source of most of the
confusion with proton. People have asked roughly the same basic questions
about proton on users@ and proton@ at roughly the same time, which did
indeed mean certain discussion with answers might have only gone to one of
the lists at a time, but the key point for me was that they had to ask
those basic questions on either list in the first place.
We are talking about improving communication, and for me the main problem
is often that information isn't being written down or sent to any of the
lists until someone asks a question requiring it. That question typically
gets met with a [large] email explaining the answer, but much of the time
it should be possible for the response to just be a link to somewhere the
answer is already written down in general, e.g the website, with perhaps
some context-specific additions. Some website update stats would probably
entertaining right about now for example.
I think users@ and dev@ should be left as is, and that we potentially just
adjust how we use them slightly. These lists have existed for several
years, and its the structure almost every Apache project works away just
fine with; I don't think we are all that special in this regard. I also
don't think we should subscribe everyone to a bunch of traffic they didn't
sign up for. That said, this doesn't mean developers actually need to post
discussion mails to dev@, the users@ list is always there and I know Gordon
at least often posts only to that if it is a user related discussion, and I
think that approach works well enough if others were to use it. The dev@
list can continue at least to hold things like the JIRA traffic (I could
see ReviewBoard postings going to either list), even if general discussion
moves to the users@ list.
Summarising, I agree we need to be better at communicating, I think a bit
of mailing list adjustment would be a good thing where proton@ could go and
dev@ should stay in some guise, but that there are other problems with our
communication that reducing the number of mailing lists potentially does
little to solve.
Robbie
On 18 January 2013 17:21, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing out
> on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
>
> Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list without
> reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a large
> part of the community in the dark. Now that we have a distinct list for
> proton there is the possibility of yet more fragmentation.
>
> I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list for
> discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that cross-cut
> different components or that would benefit from wider participation. Not
> all topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is always going
> to be the case.
>
> It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume that
> this would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of subject could
> help people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I think do warrant
> their own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be avoided if so desired).
>
> Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged with
> unwanted emails?
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.**org<us...@qpid.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>
RE: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com>.
I agree that the qpid and proton users should be on the same list. Also, it's useful for much of the development info to be open to the users list. My only concern for a second list is for things that committers may need to talk about but which the larger user community doesn't care about. For example, "who broke the build" or questions/issues about the release process, etc.
-Steve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gordon Sim [mailto:gsim@redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 12:21 PM
> To: users@qpid.apache.org; proton@qpid.apache.org; dev@qpid.apache.org
> Subject: mailing lists and fragmented communication
>
> I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing out on
> valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
>
> Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list without
> reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a large part of
> the community in the dark. Now that we have a distinct list for proton there
> is the possibility of yet more fragmentation.
>
> I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list for
> discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that cross-cut different
> components or that would benefit from wider participation. Not all topics will
> be of interest to all subscribers, but that is always going to be the case.
>
> It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume that this
> would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of subject could help
> people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I think do warrant their own
> lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be avoided if so desired).
>
> Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged with
> unwanted emails?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org For additional
> commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Rafael Schloming <rh...@alum.mit.edu>.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 01/21/2013 07:39 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
>
>> Calling it an analogy is not really being fair. Getting closer to the
>> level
>> of generality I've described has been one of if not the primary design
>> goal
>> behind AMQP 1.0 since it's inception, and the exact parallel I've
>> described
>> has motivated many of its fundamental design choices. You can certainly
>> argue that the design is flawed and it is impossible to implement the
>> architecture in such a decoupled manner, however it's not realistic to
>> simply discount it as a flawed analogy.
>>
>
> I'm not arguing that the design is flawed. I'm arguing that comparing the
> relationship of the TCP stack to the Apache Web server as being the same as
> that of Proton to a specific broker implementation and drawing from that
> the conclusion that the communities around them are thus necessarily as
> distinct is unconvincing to me.
>
I certainly wasn't intending to draw such a conclusion, and I apologize for
any sloppy wording that may have implied this. I'm merely stating my own
beliefs and conjectures about the future. I've conceded that you can do
what you like with the lists and I won't stand in the way, however I can't
make myself believe that it is the right choice, and if only for my own
cathartic benefit I feel the need to document the minority view.
Ultimately the dissent over this issue is more damaging than simply moving
forward and making progress. I've pushed it as much as I have in the past
because I do have very strong beliefs surrounding it and I'm sorry if
trying to explain my perspective has wasted more time.
--Rafael
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Rafael Schloming <rh...@alum.mit.edu>.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 01/21/2013 07:39 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
>
>> Calling it an analogy is not really being fair. Getting closer to the
>> level
>> of generality I've described has been one of if not the primary design
>> goal
>> behind AMQP 1.0 since it's inception, and the exact parallel I've
>> described
>> has motivated many of its fundamental design choices. You can certainly
>> argue that the design is flawed and it is impossible to implement the
>> architecture in such a decoupled manner, however it's not realistic to
>> simply discount it as a flawed analogy.
>>
>
> I'm not arguing that the design is flawed. I'm arguing that comparing the
> relationship of the TCP stack to the Apache Web server as being the same as
> that of Proton to a specific broker implementation and drawing from that
> the conclusion that the communities around them are thus necessarily as
> distinct is unconvincing to me.
>
I certainly wasn't intending to draw such a conclusion, and I apologize for
any sloppy wording that may have implied this. I'm merely stating my own
beliefs and conjectures about the future. I've conceded that you can do
what you like with the lists and I won't stand in the way, however I can't
make myself believe that it is the right choice, and if only for my own
cathartic benefit I feel the need to document the minority view.
Ultimately the dissent over this issue is more damaging than simply moving
forward and making progress. I've pushed it as much as I have in the past
because I do have very strong beliefs surrounding it and I'm sorry if
trying to explain my perspective has wasted more time.
--Rafael
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Rafael Schloming <rh...@alum.mit.edu>.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 01/21/2013 07:39 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
>
>> Calling it an analogy is not really being fair. Getting closer to the
>> level
>> of generality I've described has been one of if not the primary design
>> goal
>> behind AMQP 1.0 since it's inception, and the exact parallel I've
>> described
>> has motivated many of its fundamental design choices. You can certainly
>> argue that the design is flawed and it is impossible to implement the
>> architecture in such a decoupled manner, however it's not realistic to
>> simply discount it as a flawed analogy.
>>
>
> I'm not arguing that the design is flawed. I'm arguing that comparing the
> relationship of the TCP stack to the Apache Web server as being the same as
> that of Proton to a specific broker implementation and drawing from that
> the conclusion that the communities around them are thus necessarily as
> distinct is unconvincing to me.
>
I certainly wasn't intending to draw such a conclusion, and I apologize for
any sloppy wording that may have implied this. I'm merely stating my own
beliefs and conjectures about the future. I've conceded that you can do
what you like with the lists and I won't stand in the way, however I can't
make myself believe that it is the right choice, and if only for my own
cathartic benefit I feel the need to document the minority view.
Ultimately the dissent over this issue is more damaging than simply moving
forward and making progress. I've pushed it as much as I have in the past
because I do have very strong beliefs surrounding it and I'm sorry if
trying to explain my perspective has wasted more time.
--Rafael
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 01/21/2013 07:39 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> Calling it an analogy is not really being fair. Getting closer to the level
> of generality I've described has been one of if not the primary design goal
> behind AMQP 1.0 since it's inception, and the exact parallel I've described
> has motivated many of its fundamental design choices. You can certainly
> argue that the design is flawed and it is impossible to implement the
> architecture in such a decoupled manner, however it's not realistic to
> simply discount it as a flawed analogy.
I'm not arguing that the design is flawed. I'm arguing that comparing
the relationship of the TCP stack to the Apache Web server as being the
same as that of Proton to a specific broker implementation and drawing
from that the conclusion that the communities around them are thus
necessarily as distinct is unconvincing to me.
[...]
> I agree 100% with you that we need
> more communication about architecture and how components fit together and
> that this communication needs to reach a lot of people. Where I disagree
> with you is that altering the mailing lists will achieve a significant
> measure of that goal.
I don't believe I ever argued that it would.
> This communication really needs to be captured in a
> more permanent form that can be sent (ideally via a small easy to remember
> URL) to lots of mailing lists, even (perhaps especially) ones outside of
> qpid.
Sounds great! Even when that exists though, I still believe a single
list on which the community can discuss diverse AMQP and Qpid related
topics is a good thing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 01/21/2013 07:39 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> Calling it an analogy is not really being fair. Getting closer to the level
> of generality I've described has been one of if not the primary design goal
> behind AMQP 1.0 since it's inception, and the exact parallel I've described
> has motivated many of its fundamental design choices. You can certainly
> argue that the design is flawed and it is impossible to implement the
> architecture in such a decoupled manner, however it's not realistic to
> simply discount it as a flawed analogy.
I'm not arguing that the design is flawed. I'm arguing that comparing
the relationship of the TCP stack to the Apache Web server as being the
same as that of Proton to a specific broker implementation and drawing
from that the conclusion that the communities around them are thus
necessarily as distinct is unconvincing to me.
[...]
> I agree 100% with you that we need
> more communication about architecture and how components fit together and
> that this communication needs to reach a lot of people. Where I disagree
> with you is that altering the mailing lists will achieve a significant
> measure of that goal.
I don't believe I ever argued that it would.
> This communication really needs to be captured in a
> more permanent form that can be sent (ideally via a small easy to remember
> URL) to lots of mailing lists, even (perhaps especially) ones outside of
> qpid.
Sounds great! Even when that exists though, I still believe a single
list on which the community can discuss diverse AMQP and Qpid related
topics is a good thing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 01/21/2013 07:39 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> Calling it an analogy is not really being fair. Getting closer to the level
> of generality I've described has been one of if not the primary design goal
> behind AMQP 1.0 since it's inception, and the exact parallel I've described
> has motivated many of its fundamental design choices. You can certainly
> argue that the design is flawed and it is impossible to implement the
> architecture in such a decoupled manner, however it's not realistic to
> simply discount it as a flawed analogy.
I'm not arguing that the design is flawed. I'm arguing that comparing
the relationship of the TCP stack to the Apache Web server as being the
same as that of Proton to a specific broker implementation and drawing
from that the conclusion that the communities around them are thus
necessarily as distinct is unconvincing to me.
[...]
> I agree 100% with you that we need
> more communication about architecture and how components fit together and
> that this communication needs to reach a lot of people. Where I disagree
> with you is that altering the mailing lists will achieve a significant
> measure of that goal.
I don't believe I ever argued that it would.
> This communication really needs to be captured in a
> more permanent form that can be sent (ideally via a small easy to remember
> URL) to lots of mailing lists, even (perhaps especially) ones outside of
> qpid.
Sounds great! Even when that exists though, I still believe a single
list on which the community can discuss diverse AMQP and Qpid related
topics is a good thing.
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Rafael Schloming <rh...@alum.mit.edu>.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 01/21/2013 05:22 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
>
>> The users of a piece of software inherently shape its
>> direction, and forcing two pieces of software that need to be quite
>> independent to have a single user group is going to influence and shape
>> that architecture in a way that is contrary to them being independent in
>> the first place.
>>
>
> Having a single communication channel for a community is not the same as
> forcing independent pieces of software to have a single user group. No one
> is 'forcing' anyone into anything.
>
> I don't believe having more conversations in the wider community need have
> any negative impact on the architecture of independent components.
>
>
> I think this is especially concerning because the dev and
>> users list are already largely established as the cpp/java broker lists.
>>
>
> I think the lists are as much about the clients (and indeed management
> mechanisms) as the brokers. I see them as being places where all the
> components have been discussed, in combination with each other or in
> conjunction with software outside the project (RabbitMQ, Mule etc etc).
>
> The conversations evolve as the components evolve. Ultimately people talk
> about what they are interested in and what they are using. None of our
> lists are particularly high volume at this point, so I am of the opinion
> that there is more benefit to sharing a channel of communication than there
> is from segmenting it.
>
> [...]
>
> It is my
>> belief that if AMQP is successful the architectural layer represented by
>> the protocol engine + messenger, and the various applications that use it
>> (qpid-cpp, qpid-ava, activemq, and more) will ultimately be strongly
>> reflected in their own distinct communities and it may well be as strange
>> and alien to think of merging the communities/lists as it would be to
>> combine the TCP stack/socket API into a single project with the apache web
>> server.
>>
>
> Time will tell of course, but I myself take a different view. I think the
> analogy is somewhat flawed.
>
> I think AMQP will have a community of interest around it, a community that
> is specifically driven by the vision of interoperability, of composing
> systems from many different parts. Not all members of that community will
> be interested in the exactly the same set of components of course, but I
> think there will be a lot more common interests than your analogy would
> suggest. I think there will also be general issues that are relevant to
> different components (e.g. global addressing). Having an AMQP focused
> community at Apache and having that community discuss various different
> components with different architectural relationships seems entirely
> natural to me.
>
Calling it an analogy is not really being fair. Getting closer to the level
of generality I've described has been one of if not the primary design goal
behind AMQP 1.0 since it's inception, and the exact parallel I've described
has motivated many of its fundamental design choices. You can certainly
argue that the design is flawed and it is impossible to implement the
architecture in such a decoupled manner, however it's not realistic to
simply discount it as a flawed analogy.
>
> [...]
>
> Already it's hard to imagine how the details of implementing ssl
>> support in proton and the details of implementing a transactional
>> persistent message store will significantly benefit from cross
>> communication.
>>
>
> In my view that entirely misses the point. Those topics themselves may
> seem quite distinct, but there are many people who would be interested in
> both of those topics. There are also likely some people who might be
> interested in knowing a bit about them and/or contributing to discussions
> around them even if they are at present primarily focused on some other
> component entirely.
>
> Clearly users of proton's messenger API may be interested in communicating
> with a persistent transactional store. Users of other APIs might be
> interested in how the messenger API differs in that use case with whatever
> API they use. Implementers of such a store may be interested in proton's
> engine API (as well as some other broker/brokers).
>
> So even with these two distinct topics it seems to me (at the risk of
> repeating myself to the point you all stop listening and filter my emails
> to /dev/null!) that there are benefits to sharing a communication channel
> and at present no real concerns about excessive traffic (at least none so
> far expressed).
>
>
I don't think I've missed your point. I agree 100% with you that we need
more communication about architecture and how components fit together and
that this communication needs to reach a lot of people. Where I disagree
with you is that altering the mailing lists will achieve a significant
measure of that goal. This communication really needs to be captured in a
more permanent form that can be sent (ideally via a small easy to remember
URL) to lots of mailing lists, even (perhaps especially) ones outside of
qpid.
--Rafael
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Rafael Schloming <rh...@alum.mit.edu>.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 01/21/2013 05:22 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
>
>> The users of a piece of software inherently shape its
>> direction, and forcing two pieces of software that need to be quite
>> independent to have a single user group is going to influence and shape
>> that architecture in a way that is contrary to them being independent in
>> the first place.
>>
>
> Having a single communication channel for a community is not the same as
> forcing independent pieces of software to have a single user group. No one
> is 'forcing' anyone into anything.
>
> I don't believe having more conversations in the wider community need have
> any negative impact on the architecture of independent components.
>
>
> I think this is especially concerning because the dev and
>> users list are already largely established as the cpp/java broker lists.
>>
>
> I think the lists are as much about the clients (and indeed management
> mechanisms) as the brokers. I see them as being places where all the
> components have been discussed, in combination with each other or in
> conjunction with software outside the project (RabbitMQ, Mule etc etc).
>
> The conversations evolve as the components evolve. Ultimately people talk
> about what they are interested in and what they are using. None of our
> lists are particularly high volume at this point, so I am of the opinion
> that there is more benefit to sharing a channel of communication than there
> is from segmenting it.
>
> [...]
>
> It is my
>> belief that if AMQP is successful the architectural layer represented by
>> the protocol engine + messenger, and the various applications that use it
>> (qpid-cpp, qpid-ava, activemq, and more) will ultimately be strongly
>> reflected in their own distinct communities and it may well be as strange
>> and alien to think of merging the communities/lists as it would be to
>> combine the TCP stack/socket API into a single project with the apache web
>> server.
>>
>
> Time will tell of course, but I myself take a different view. I think the
> analogy is somewhat flawed.
>
> I think AMQP will have a community of interest around it, a community that
> is specifically driven by the vision of interoperability, of composing
> systems from many different parts. Not all members of that community will
> be interested in the exactly the same set of components of course, but I
> think there will be a lot more common interests than your analogy would
> suggest. I think there will also be general issues that are relevant to
> different components (e.g. global addressing). Having an AMQP focused
> community at Apache and having that community discuss various different
> components with different architectural relationships seems entirely
> natural to me.
>
Calling it an analogy is not really being fair. Getting closer to the level
of generality I've described has been one of if not the primary design goal
behind AMQP 1.0 since it's inception, and the exact parallel I've described
has motivated many of its fundamental design choices. You can certainly
argue that the design is flawed and it is impossible to implement the
architecture in such a decoupled manner, however it's not realistic to
simply discount it as a flawed analogy.
>
> [...]
>
> Already it's hard to imagine how the details of implementing ssl
>> support in proton and the details of implementing a transactional
>> persistent message store will significantly benefit from cross
>> communication.
>>
>
> In my view that entirely misses the point. Those topics themselves may
> seem quite distinct, but there are many people who would be interested in
> both of those topics. There are also likely some people who might be
> interested in knowing a bit about them and/or contributing to discussions
> around them even if they are at present primarily focused on some other
> component entirely.
>
> Clearly users of proton's messenger API may be interested in communicating
> with a persistent transactional store. Users of other APIs might be
> interested in how the messenger API differs in that use case with whatever
> API they use. Implementers of such a store may be interested in proton's
> engine API (as well as some other broker/brokers).
>
> So even with these two distinct topics it seems to me (at the risk of
> repeating myself to the point you all stop listening and filter my emails
> to /dev/null!) that there are benefits to sharing a communication channel
> and at present no real concerns about excessive traffic (at least none so
> far expressed).
>
>
I don't think I've missed your point. I agree 100% with you that we need
more communication about architecture and how components fit together and
that this communication needs to reach a lot of people. Where I disagree
with you is that altering the mailing lists will achieve a significant
measure of that goal. This communication really needs to be captured in a
more permanent form that can be sent (ideally via a small easy to remember
URL) to lots of mailing lists, even (perhaps especially) ones outside of
qpid.
--Rafael
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Rafael Schloming <rh...@alum.mit.edu>.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 01/21/2013 05:22 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
>
>> The users of a piece of software inherently shape its
>> direction, and forcing two pieces of software that need to be quite
>> independent to have a single user group is going to influence and shape
>> that architecture in a way that is contrary to them being independent in
>> the first place.
>>
>
> Having a single communication channel for a community is not the same as
> forcing independent pieces of software to have a single user group. No one
> is 'forcing' anyone into anything.
>
> I don't believe having more conversations in the wider community need have
> any negative impact on the architecture of independent components.
>
>
> I think this is especially concerning because the dev and
>> users list are already largely established as the cpp/java broker lists.
>>
>
> I think the lists are as much about the clients (and indeed management
> mechanisms) as the brokers. I see them as being places where all the
> components have been discussed, in combination with each other or in
> conjunction with software outside the project (RabbitMQ, Mule etc etc).
>
> The conversations evolve as the components evolve. Ultimately people talk
> about what they are interested in and what they are using. None of our
> lists are particularly high volume at this point, so I am of the opinion
> that there is more benefit to sharing a channel of communication than there
> is from segmenting it.
>
> [...]
>
> It is my
>> belief that if AMQP is successful the architectural layer represented by
>> the protocol engine + messenger, and the various applications that use it
>> (qpid-cpp, qpid-ava, activemq, and more) will ultimately be strongly
>> reflected in their own distinct communities and it may well be as strange
>> and alien to think of merging the communities/lists as it would be to
>> combine the TCP stack/socket API into a single project with the apache web
>> server.
>>
>
> Time will tell of course, but I myself take a different view. I think the
> analogy is somewhat flawed.
>
> I think AMQP will have a community of interest around it, a community that
> is specifically driven by the vision of interoperability, of composing
> systems from many different parts. Not all members of that community will
> be interested in the exactly the same set of components of course, but I
> think there will be a lot more common interests than your analogy would
> suggest. I think there will also be general issues that are relevant to
> different components (e.g. global addressing). Having an AMQP focused
> community at Apache and having that community discuss various different
> components with different architectural relationships seems entirely
> natural to me.
>
Calling it an analogy is not really being fair. Getting closer to the level
of generality I've described has been one of if not the primary design goal
behind AMQP 1.0 since it's inception, and the exact parallel I've described
has motivated many of its fundamental design choices. You can certainly
argue that the design is flawed and it is impossible to implement the
architecture in such a decoupled manner, however it's not realistic to
simply discount it as a flawed analogy.
>
> [...]
>
> Already it's hard to imagine how the details of implementing ssl
>> support in proton and the details of implementing a transactional
>> persistent message store will significantly benefit from cross
>> communication.
>>
>
> In my view that entirely misses the point. Those topics themselves may
> seem quite distinct, but there are many people who would be interested in
> both of those topics. There are also likely some people who might be
> interested in knowing a bit about them and/or contributing to discussions
> around them even if they are at present primarily focused on some other
> component entirely.
>
> Clearly users of proton's messenger API may be interested in communicating
> with a persistent transactional store. Users of other APIs might be
> interested in how the messenger API differs in that use case with whatever
> API they use. Implementers of such a store may be interested in proton's
> engine API (as well as some other broker/brokers).
>
> So even with these two distinct topics it seems to me (at the risk of
> repeating myself to the point you all stop listening and filter my emails
> to /dev/null!) that there are benefits to sharing a communication channel
> and at present no real concerns about excessive traffic (at least none so
> far expressed).
>
>
I don't think I've missed your point. I agree 100% with you that we need
more communication about architecture and how components fit together and
that this communication needs to reach a lot of people. Where I disagree
with you is that altering the mailing lists will achieve a significant
measure of that goal. This communication really needs to be captured in a
more permanent form that can be sent (ideally via a small easy to remember
URL) to lots of mailing lists, even (perhaps especially) ones outside of
qpid.
--Rafael
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 01/21/2013 05:22 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> The users of a piece of software inherently shape its
> direction, and forcing two pieces of software that need to be quite
> independent to have a single user group is going to influence and shape
> that architecture in a way that is contrary to them being independent in
> the first place.
Having a single communication channel for a community is not the same as
forcing independent pieces of software to have a single user group. No
one is 'forcing' anyone into anything.
I don't believe having more conversations in the wider community need
have any negative impact on the architecture of independent components.
> I think this is especially concerning because the dev and
> users list are already largely established as the cpp/java broker lists.
I think the lists are as much about the clients (and indeed management
mechanisms) as the brokers. I see them as being places where all the
components have been discussed, in combination with each other or in
conjunction with software outside the project (RabbitMQ, Mule etc etc).
The conversations evolve as the components evolve. Ultimately people
talk about what they are interested in and what they are using. None of
our lists are particularly high volume at this point, so I am of the
opinion that there is more benefit to sharing a channel of communication
than there is from segmenting it.
[...]
> It is my
> belief that if AMQP is successful the architectural layer represented by
> the protocol engine + messenger, and the various applications that use it
> (qpid-cpp, qpid-ava, activemq, and more) will ultimately be strongly
> reflected in their own distinct communities and it may well be as strange
> and alien to think of merging the communities/lists as it would be to
> combine the TCP stack/socket API into a single project with the apache web
> server.
Time will tell of course, but I myself take a different view. I think
the analogy is somewhat flawed.
I think AMQP will have a community of interest around it, a community
that is specifically driven by the vision of interoperability, of
composing systems from many different parts. Not all members of that
community will be interested in the exactly the same set of components
of course, but I think there will be a lot more common interests than
your analogy would suggest. I think there will also be general issues
that are relevant to different components (e.g. global addressing).
Having an AMQP focused community at Apache and having that community
discuss various different components with different architectural
relationships seems entirely natural to me.
[...]
> Already it's hard to imagine how the details of implementing ssl
> support in proton and the details of implementing a transactional
> persistent message store will significantly benefit from cross
> communication.
In my view that entirely misses the point. Those topics themselves may
seem quite distinct, but there are many people who would be interested
in both of those topics. There are also likely some people who might be
interested in knowing a bit about them and/or contributing to
discussions around them even if they are at present primarily focused on
some other component entirely.
Clearly users of proton's messenger API may be interested in
communicating with a persistent transactional store. Users of other APIs
might be interested in how the messenger API differs in that use case
with whatever API they use. Implementers of such a store may be
interested in proton's engine API (as well as some other broker/brokers).
So even with these two distinct topics it seems to me (at the risk of
repeating myself to the point you all stop listening and filter my
emails to /dev/null!) that there are benefits to sharing a communication
channel and at present no real concerns about excessive traffic (at
least none so far expressed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 01/21/2013 05:22 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> The users of a piece of software inherently shape its
> direction, and forcing two pieces of software that need to be quite
> independent to have a single user group is going to influence and shape
> that architecture in a way that is contrary to them being independent in
> the first place.
Having a single communication channel for a community is not the same as
forcing independent pieces of software to have a single user group. No
one is 'forcing' anyone into anything.
I don't believe having more conversations in the wider community need
have any negative impact on the architecture of independent components.
> I think this is especially concerning because the dev and
> users list are already largely established as the cpp/java broker lists.
I think the lists are as much about the clients (and indeed management
mechanisms) as the brokers. I see them as being places where all the
components have been discussed, in combination with each other or in
conjunction with software outside the project (RabbitMQ, Mule etc etc).
The conversations evolve as the components evolve. Ultimately people
talk about what they are interested in and what they are using. None of
our lists are particularly high volume at this point, so I am of the
opinion that there is more benefit to sharing a channel of communication
than there is from segmenting it.
[...]
> It is my
> belief that if AMQP is successful the architectural layer represented by
> the protocol engine + messenger, and the various applications that use it
> (qpid-cpp, qpid-ava, activemq, and more) will ultimately be strongly
> reflected in their own distinct communities and it may well be as strange
> and alien to think of merging the communities/lists as it would be to
> combine the TCP stack/socket API into a single project with the apache web
> server.
Time will tell of course, but I myself take a different view. I think
the analogy is somewhat flawed.
I think AMQP will have a community of interest around it, a community
that is specifically driven by the vision of interoperability, of
composing systems from many different parts. Not all members of that
community will be interested in the exactly the same set of components
of course, but I think there will be a lot more common interests than
your analogy would suggest. I think there will also be general issues
that are relevant to different components (e.g. global addressing).
Having an AMQP focused community at Apache and having that community
discuss various different components with different architectural
relationships seems entirely natural to me.
[...]
> Already it's hard to imagine how the details of implementing ssl
> support in proton and the details of implementing a transactional
> persistent message store will significantly benefit from cross
> communication.
In my view that entirely misses the point. Those topics themselves may
seem quite distinct, but there are many people who would be interested
in both of those topics. There are also likely some people who might be
interested in knowing a bit about them and/or contributing to
discussions around them even if they are at present primarily focused on
some other component entirely.
Clearly users of proton's messenger API may be interested in
communicating with a persistent transactional store. Users of other APIs
might be interested in how the messenger API differs in that use case
with whatever API they use. Implementers of such a store may be
interested in proton's engine API (as well as some other broker/brokers).
So even with these two distinct topics it seems to me (at the risk of
repeating myself to the point you all stop listening and filter my
emails to /dev/null!) that there are benefits to sharing a communication
channel and at present no real concerns about excessive traffic (at
least none so far expressed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 01/21/2013 05:22 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> The users of a piece of software inherently shape its
> direction, and forcing two pieces of software that need to be quite
> independent to have a single user group is going to influence and shape
> that architecture in a way that is contrary to them being independent in
> the first place.
Having a single communication channel for a community is not the same as
forcing independent pieces of software to have a single user group. No
one is 'forcing' anyone into anything.
I don't believe having more conversations in the wider community need
have any negative impact on the architecture of independent components.
> I think this is especially concerning because the dev and
> users list are already largely established as the cpp/java broker lists.
I think the lists are as much about the clients (and indeed management
mechanisms) as the brokers. I see them as being places where all the
components have been discussed, in combination with each other or in
conjunction with software outside the project (RabbitMQ, Mule etc etc).
The conversations evolve as the components evolve. Ultimately people
talk about what they are interested in and what they are using. None of
our lists are particularly high volume at this point, so I am of the
opinion that there is more benefit to sharing a channel of communication
than there is from segmenting it.
[...]
> It is my
> belief that if AMQP is successful the architectural layer represented by
> the protocol engine + messenger, and the various applications that use it
> (qpid-cpp, qpid-ava, activemq, and more) will ultimately be strongly
> reflected in their own distinct communities and it may well be as strange
> and alien to think of merging the communities/lists as it would be to
> combine the TCP stack/socket API into a single project with the apache web
> server.
Time will tell of course, but I myself take a different view. I think
the analogy is somewhat flawed.
I think AMQP will have a community of interest around it, a community
that is specifically driven by the vision of interoperability, of
composing systems from many different parts. Not all members of that
community will be interested in the exactly the same set of components
of course, but I think there will be a lot more common interests than
your analogy would suggest. I think there will also be general issues
that are relevant to different components (e.g. global addressing).
Having an AMQP focused community at Apache and having that community
discuss various different components with different architectural
relationships seems entirely natural to me.
[...]
> Already it's hard to imagine how the details of implementing ssl
> support in proton and the details of implementing a transactional
> persistent message store will significantly benefit from cross
> communication.
In my view that entirely misses the point. Those topics themselves may
seem quite distinct, but there are many people who would be interested
in both of those topics. There are also likely some people who might be
interested in knowing a bit about them and/or contributing to
discussions around them even if they are at present primarily focused on
some other component entirely.
Clearly users of proton's messenger API may be interested in
communicating with a persistent transactional store. Users of other APIs
might be interested in how the messenger API differs in that use case
with whatever API they use. Implementers of such a store may be
interested in proton's engine API (as well as some other broker/brokers).
So even with these two distinct topics it seems to me (at the risk of
repeating myself to the point you all stop listening and filter my
emails to /dev/null!) that there are benefits to sharing a communication
channel and at present no real concerns about excessive traffic (at
least none so far expressed).
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Rafael Schloming <rh...@alum.mit.edu>.
It's really about architecture and audience and how they interact. The
architecture we are currently developing is closely modelled on the
existing architecture of the internet. At the lowest layer the TCP stack
provides a very general purpose protocol to a very wide range of
applications. This is directly the role the protocol engine plays for AMQP.
Slightly above that in the software stack the socket API makes it easy
(relatively speaking) for your application to speak TCP. Again this is
identical to the role that the Messenger API serves. Neither the socket API
nor Messenger provide you direct control over every aspect of the protocol
details, but they do make it easy to interface to the basic functionality
of the respective protocols and they provide you indirect access (via
intermediaries) to many more advanced capabilities of the protocol.
At the highest layer applications build on top of the protocol. In the case
of TCP there are many thousands of applications including very important
ones like HTTP, SMTP, etc. For AMQP, we currently have three examples at
apache (the cpp/java brokers, and activemq), however I believe there are
potentially many many other applications that could build on top of AMQP,
perhaps even as many as currently exist on TCP.
>From this perspective, I would assert that both messenger and the protocol
engine have potentially very cross-cutting and broad audiences, whereas the
brokers (relatively speaking) have inherently narrower and more domain
specific audiences. While I can sympathize with the idea that a single
broadcast communication channel might make it easier to explain this
picture in the short term, I am deeply concerned that it will lead to
distortion of this picture in the longer term as architecture tends to
follow audience. The users of a piece of software inherently shape its
direction, and forcing two pieces of software that need to be quite
independent to have a single user group is going to influence and shape
that architecture in a way that is contrary to them being independent in
the first place. I think this is especially concerning because the dev and
users list are already largely established as the cpp/java broker lists.
So to answer your question, I don't actually think the arrangement of
mailing lists will make all that much difference in the short term, that is
something we need to proactively work on through other means, however I do
think it can have a significant influence in the long term. It is my
belief that if AMQP is successful the architectural layer represented by
the protocol engine + messenger, and the various applications that use it
(qpid-cpp, qpid-ava, activemq, and more) will ultimately be strongly
reflected in their own distinct communities and it may well be as strange
and alien to think of merging the communities/lists as it would be to
combine the TCP stack/socket API into a single project with the apache web
server. Already it's hard to imagine how the details of implementing ssl
support in proton and the details of implementing a transactional
persistent message store will significantly benefit from cross
communication.
All that said, my primary concern is to promote a good understanding and
foster development of the architecture outlined above, and this requires
good communication beyond just the people who are on any of our mailing
lists. If we can't explain proton to users of other qpid components, we
certainly can't explain it well to the rest of the world. So if the above
picture is well understood and there is still overwhelming consensus that
merging lists will help achieve this goal then I won't stand in the way. I
don't claim to know that we can't evolve to where we need to be through
that path, merely that it worries me in some significant ways and that qpid
mailing list communication in general is a very small subset of our overall
communication problems, so any action (or inaction) we take with the lists
should not make us feel better about having actually done something to
solve the problem.
--Rafael
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Ken Giusti <kg...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Rafi,
>
> You raise some good points, but I don't understand how keeping a separate
> proton list makes it easier to provide a coherent view of the qpid project,
> especially to newcomers.
>
> As you point out:
>
> > The project goals/identity issue
> > in my
> > mind has very little to do with the lists and more to do with the
> > fact that
> > many people think of qpid == broker, qpid cpp == cpp broker, and qpid
> > java
> > == java broker. While this understanding may have been more or less
> > true at
> > one point, it is now and going forward a misconception, yet we have
> > done
> > nothing to educate our users about this.
>
>
> Agreed, and to that point, I think it would be a very bad precedent to
> structure the mailing lists into component silos. Wouldn't creating a
> separate mailing list for, say "qpid-cpp-broker@qpid.apache.org", send
> exactly the wrong message? Yet "proton@qpid.apache.org" somehow doesn't?
>
> If we really want people to think of QPID as being more than just a cpp
> broker/java broker/etc, then we should start by revising the very first
> paragraph of our homepage:
>
> "Introduction
>
> Apache Qpid™ is a cross-platform Enterprise Messaging system which
> implements the Advanced Message Queuing Protocol (AMQP), providing message
> brokers written in C++ and Java, along with clients for C++, Java JMS,
> .Net, Python, and Ruby."
>
>
> -K
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > I think you raise a good point about the goals of the project being
> > confused, but don't think the cause here is mailing lists. As we've
> > seen,
> > recent threads have asked about "qpid vs proton", and to a lot of us
> > this
> > is an odd thing to ask about because we think of proton as part of
> > qpid.
> > However we who are close to the project also think of qpid as
> > something
> > that is larger than just a broker. The project goals/identity issue
> > in my
> > mind has very little to do with the lists and more to do with the
> > fact that
> > many people think of qpid == broker, qpid cpp == cpp broker, and qpid
> > java
> > == java broker. While this understanding may have been more or less
> > true at
> > one point, it is now and going forward a misconception, yet we have
> > done
> > nothing to educate our users about this. I think this is really at
> > the core
> > of the identity issues, and if anything a separate proton list has
> > helped
> > raise these issues to the surface, because at least it is clear that
> > proton
> > is something that is self contained and distinct from the cpp broker
> > and
> > the java broker.
> >
> > I would hate to lose that distinction and have it all turn into one
> > big
> > jumbled muddle. I think rearranging the lists is not a substitute for
> > rearranging the project and actively communicating about its
> > structure. I
> > may be in the minority with my -1, but I think there is actually a
> > lot more
> > work that needs to be done surrounding project structure, identity,
> > documentation, communication, etc, and simply rearranging lists
> > without
> > doing the rest of that work is IMHO jumping the gun.
> >
> > --Rafael
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Ken Giusti <kg...@redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm in favor of combining them all into one.
> > >
> > > If not that, then at least collapse the "proton" list. The level
> > > of
> > > traffic on that list isn't unreasonable, and, frankly, keeping it
> > > separate
> > > probably leads to some of the confusion we're seeing over the goals
> > > of this
> > > project.
> > >
> > >
> > > -K
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are
> > > > missing
> > > > out on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
> > > >
> > > > Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list
> > > > without
> > > > reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a
> > > > large
> > > > part of the community in the dark. Now that we have a distinct
> > > > list
> > > > for
> > > > proton there is the possibility of yet more fragmentation.
> > > >
> > > > I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list
> > > > for
> > > > discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that
> > > > cross-cut
> > > > different components or that would benefit from wider
> > > > participation.
> > > > Not
> > > > all topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is
> > > > always
> > > > going to be the case.
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume
> > > > that
> > > > this would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of
> > > > subject
> > > > could help people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I
> > > > think
> > > > do
> > > > warrant their own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be
> > > > avoided
> > > > if
> > > > so desired).
> > > >
> > > > Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being
> > > > deluged
> > > > with
> > > > unwanted emails?
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Rafael Schloming <rh...@alum.mit.edu>.
It's really about architecture and audience and how they interact. The
architecture we are currently developing is closely modelled on the
existing architecture of the internet. At the lowest layer the TCP stack
provides a very general purpose protocol to a very wide range of
applications. This is directly the role the protocol engine plays for AMQP.
Slightly above that in the software stack the socket API makes it easy
(relatively speaking) for your application to speak TCP. Again this is
identical to the role that the Messenger API serves. Neither the socket API
nor Messenger provide you direct control over every aspect of the protocol
details, but they do make it easy to interface to the basic functionality
of the respective protocols and they provide you indirect access (via
intermediaries) to many more advanced capabilities of the protocol.
At the highest layer applications build on top of the protocol. In the case
of TCP there are many thousands of applications including very important
ones like HTTP, SMTP, etc. For AMQP, we currently have three examples at
apache (the cpp/java brokers, and activemq), however I believe there are
potentially many many other applications that could build on top of AMQP,
perhaps even as many as currently exist on TCP.
>From this perspective, I would assert that both messenger and the protocol
engine have potentially very cross-cutting and broad audiences, whereas the
brokers (relatively speaking) have inherently narrower and more domain
specific audiences. While I can sympathize with the idea that a single
broadcast communication channel might make it easier to explain this
picture in the short term, I am deeply concerned that it will lead to
distortion of this picture in the longer term as architecture tends to
follow audience. The users of a piece of software inherently shape its
direction, and forcing two pieces of software that need to be quite
independent to have a single user group is going to influence and shape
that architecture in a way that is contrary to them being independent in
the first place. I think this is especially concerning because the dev and
users list are already largely established as the cpp/java broker lists.
So to answer your question, I don't actually think the arrangement of
mailing lists will make all that much difference in the short term, that is
something we need to proactively work on through other means, however I do
think it can have a significant influence in the long term. It is my
belief that if AMQP is successful the architectural layer represented by
the protocol engine + messenger, and the various applications that use it
(qpid-cpp, qpid-ava, activemq, and more) will ultimately be strongly
reflected in their own distinct communities and it may well be as strange
and alien to think of merging the communities/lists as it would be to
combine the TCP stack/socket API into a single project with the apache web
server. Already it's hard to imagine how the details of implementing ssl
support in proton and the details of implementing a transactional
persistent message store will significantly benefit from cross
communication.
All that said, my primary concern is to promote a good understanding and
foster development of the architecture outlined above, and this requires
good communication beyond just the people who are on any of our mailing
lists. If we can't explain proton to users of other qpid components, we
certainly can't explain it well to the rest of the world. So if the above
picture is well understood and there is still overwhelming consensus that
merging lists will help achieve this goal then I won't stand in the way. I
don't claim to know that we can't evolve to where we need to be through
that path, merely that it worries me in some significant ways and that qpid
mailing list communication in general is a very small subset of our overall
communication problems, so any action (or inaction) we take with the lists
should not make us feel better about having actually done something to
solve the problem.
--Rafael
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Ken Giusti <kg...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Rafi,
>
> You raise some good points, but I don't understand how keeping a separate
> proton list makes it easier to provide a coherent view of the qpid project,
> especially to newcomers.
>
> As you point out:
>
> > The project goals/identity issue
> > in my
> > mind has very little to do with the lists and more to do with the
> > fact that
> > many people think of qpid == broker, qpid cpp == cpp broker, and qpid
> > java
> > == java broker. While this understanding may have been more or less
> > true at
> > one point, it is now and going forward a misconception, yet we have
> > done
> > nothing to educate our users about this.
>
>
> Agreed, and to that point, I think it would be a very bad precedent to
> structure the mailing lists into component silos. Wouldn't creating a
> separate mailing list for, say "qpid-cpp-broker@qpid.apache.org", send
> exactly the wrong message? Yet "proton@qpid.apache.org" somehow doesn't?
>
> If we really want people to think of QPID as being more than just a cpp
> broker/java broker/etc, then we should start by revising the very first
> paragraph of our homepage:
>
> "Introduction
>
> Apache Qpid™ is a cross-platform Enterprise Messaging system which
> implements the Advanced Message Queuing Protocol (AMQP), providing message
> brokers written in C++ and Java, along with clients for C++, Java JMS,
> .Net, Python, and Ruby."
>
>
> -K
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > I think you raise a good point about the goals of the project being
> > confused, but don't think the cause here is mailing lists. As we've
> > seen,
> > recent threads have asked about "qpid vs proton", and to a lot of us
> > this
> > is an odd thing to ask about because we think of proton as part of
> > qpid.
> > However we who are close to the project also think of qpid as
> > something
> > that is larger than just a broker. The project goals/identity issue
> > in my
> > mind has very little to do with the lists and more to do with the
> > fact that
> > many people think of qpid == broker, qpid cpp == cpp broker, and qpid
> > java
> > == java broker. While this understanding may have been more or less
> > true at
> > one point, it is now and going forward a misconception, yet we have
> > done
> > nothing to educate our users about this. I think this is really at
> > the core
> > of the identity issues, and if anything a separate proton list has
> > helped
> > raise these issues to the surface, because at least it is clear that
> > proton
> > is something that is self contained and distinct from the cpp broker
> > and
> > the java broker.
> >
> > I would hate to lose that distinction and have it all turn into one
> > big
> > jumbled muddle. I think rearranging the lists is not a substitute for
> > rearranging the project and actively communicating about its
> > structure. I
> > may be in the minority with my -1, but I think there is actually a
> > lot more
> > work that needs to be done surrounding project structure, identity,
> > documentation, communication, etc, and simply rearranging lists
> > without
> > doing the rest of that work is IMHO jumping the gun.
> >
> > --Rafael
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Ken Giusti <kg...@redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm in favor of combining them all into one.
> > >
> > > If not that, then at least collapse the "proton" list. The level
> > > of
> > > traffic on that list isn't unreasonable, and, frankly, keeping it
> > > separate
> > > probably leads to some of the confusion we're seeing over the goals
> > > of this
> > > project.
> > >
> > >
> > > -K
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are
> > > > missing
> > > > out on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
> > > >
> > > > Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list
> > > > without
> > > > reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a
> > > > large
> > > > part of the community in the dark. Now that we have a distinct
> > > > list
> > > > for
> > > > proton there is the possibility of yet more fragmentation.
> > > >
> > > > I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list
> > > > for
> > > > discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that
> > > > cross-cut
> > > > different components or that would benefit from wider
> > > > participation.
> > > > Not
> > > > all topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is
> > > > always
> > > > going to be the case.
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume
> > > > that
> > > > this would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of
> > > > subject
> > > > could help people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I
> > > > think
> > > > do
> > > > warrant their own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be
> > > > avoided
> > > > if
> > > > so desired).
> > > >
> > > > Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being
> > > > deluged
> > > > with
> > > > unwanted emails?
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 01/18/2013 08:23 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> I think rearranging the lists is not a substitute for
> rearranging the project and actively communicating about its structure.
I quite agree. My suggestion to consolidate discussions to one list is
not an attempt to imply anything about structure, but simply a way of
improving the flow of information.
> I may be in the minority with my -1, but I think there is actually a
> lot more work that needs to be done surrounding project structure,
> identity, documentation, communication, etc, and simply rearranging
> lists without doing the rest of that work is IMHO jumping the gun.
I don't think having a separate mailing list is the right way to ensure
the proton toolkit remains distinct and self contained. That is done
much more effectively through svn structure, build & release processes
and as you very rightly point out, better documentation and communication.
I believe communication will be simpler and more effective with one
list. I believe a less fragmented discussion will more quickly lead to
question being raised and answered and consensus and common
understanding growing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Rafael Schloming <rh...@alum.mit.edu>.
It's really about architecture and audience and how they interact. The
architecture we are currently developing is closely modelled on the
existing architecture of the internet. At the lowest layer the TCP stack
provides a very general purpose protocol to a very wide range of
applications. This is directly the role the protocol engine plays for AMQP.
Slightly above that in the software stack the socket API makes it easy
(relatively speaking) for your application to speak TCP. Again this is
identical to the role that the Messenger API serves. Neither the socket API
nor Messenger provide you direct control over every aspect of the protocol
details, but they do make it easy to interface to the basic functionality
of the respective protocols and they provide you indirect access (via
intermediaries) to many more advanced capabilities of the protocol.
At the highest layer applications build on top of the protocol. In the case
of TCP there are many thousands of applications including very important
ones like HTTP, SMTP, etc. For AMQP, we currently have three examples at
apache (the cpp/java brokers, and activemq), however I believe there are
potentially many many other applications that could build on top of AMQP,
perhaps even as many as currently exist on TCP.
>From this perspective, I would assert that both messenger and the protocol
engine have potentially very cross-cutting and broad audiences, whereas the
brokers (relatively speaking) have inherently narrower and more domain
specific audiences. While I can sympathize with the idea that a single
broadcast communication channel might make it easier to explain this
picture in the short term, I am deeply concerned that it will lead to
distortion of this picture in the longer term as architecture tends to
follow audience. The users of a piece of software inherently shape its
direction, and forcing two pieces of software that need to be quite
independent to have a single user group is going to influence and shape
that architecture in a way that is contrary to them being independent in
the first place. I think this is especially concerning because the dev and
users list are already largely established as the cpp/java broker lists.
So to answer your question, I don't actually think the arrangement of
mailing lists will make all that much difference in the short term, that is
something we need to proactively work on through other means, however I do
think it can have a significant influence in the long term. It is my
belief that if AMQP is successful the architectural layer represented by
the protocol engine + messenger, and the various applications that use it
(qpid-cpp, qpid-ava, activemq, and more) will ultimately be strongly
reflected in their own distinct communities and it may well be as strange
and alien to think of merging the communities/lists as it would be to
combine the TCP stack/socket API into a single project with the apache web
server. Already it's hard to imagine how the details of implementing ssl
support in proton and the details of implementing a transactional
persistent message store will significantly benefit from cross
communication.
All that said, my primary concern is to promote a good understanding and
foster development of the architecture outlined above, and this requires
good communication beyond just the people who are on any of our mailing
lists. If we can't explain proton to users of other qpid components, we
certainly can't explain it well to the rest of the world. So if the above
picture is well understood and there is still overwhelming consensus that
merging lists will help achieve this goal then I won't stand in the way. I
don't claim to know that we can't evolve to where we need to be through
that path, merely that it worries me in some significant ways and that qpid
mailing list communication in general is a very small subset of our overall
communication problems, so any action (or inaction) we take with the lists
should not make us feel better about having actually done something to
solve the problem.
--Rafael
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Ken Giusti <kg...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Rafi,
>
> You raise some good points, but I don't understand how keeping a separate
> proton list makes it easier to provide a coherent view of the qpid project,
> especially to newcomers.
>
> As you point out:
>
> > The project goals/identity issue
> > in my
> > mind has very little to do with the lists and more to do with the
> > fact that
> > many people think of qpid == broker, qpid cpp == cpp broker, and qpid
> > java
> > == java broker. While this understanding may have been more or less
> > true at
> > one point, it is now and going forward a misconception, yet we have
> > done
> > nothing to educate our users about this.
>
>
> Agreed, and to that point, I think it would be a very bad precedent to
> structure the mailing lists into component silos. Wouldn't creating a
> separate mailing list for, say "qpid-cpp-broker@qpid.apache.org", send
> exactly the wrong message? Yet "proton@qpid.apache.org" somehow doesn't?
>
> If we really want people to think of QPID as being more than just a cpp
> broker/java broker/etc, then we should start by revising the very first
> paragraph of our homepage:
>
> "Introduction
>
> Apache Qpid™ is a cross-platform Enterprise Messaging system which
> implements the Advanced Message Queuing Protocol (AMQP), providing message
> brokers written in C++ and Java, along with clients for C++, Java JMS,
> .Net, Python, and Ruby."
>
>
> -K
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > I think you raise a good point about the goals of the project being
> > confused, but don't think the cause here is mailing lists. As we've
> > seen,
> > recent threads have asked about "qpid vs proton", and to a lot of us
> > this
> > is an odd thing to ask about because we think of proton as part of
> > qpid.
> > However we who are close to the project also think of qpid as
> > something
> > that is larger than just a broker. The project goals/identity issue
> > in my
> > mind has very little to do with the lists and more to do with the
> > fact that
> > many people think of qpid == broker, qpid cpp == cpp broker, and qpid
> > java
> > == java broker. While this understanding may have been more or less
> > true at
> > one point, it is now and going forward a misconception, yet we have
> > done
> > nothing to educate our users about this. I think this is really at
> > the core
> > of the identity issues, and if anything a separate proton list has
> > helped
> > raise these issues to the surface, because at least it is clear that
> > proton
> > is something that is self contained and distinct from the cpp broker
> > and
> > the java broker.
> >
> > I would hate to lose that distinction and have it all turn into one
> > big
> > jumbled muddle. I think rearranging the lists is not a substitute for
> > rearranging the project and actively communicating about its
> > structure. I
> > may be in the minority with my -1, but I think there is actually a
> > lot more
> > work that needs to be done surrounding project structure, identity,
> > documentation, communication, etc, and simply rearranging lists
> > without
> > doing the rest of that work is IMHO jumping the gun.
> >
> > --Rafael
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Ken Giusti <kg...@redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm in favor of combining them all into one.
> > >
> > > If not that, then at least collapse the "proton" list. The level
> > > of
> > > traffic on that list isn't unreasonable, and, frankly, keeping it
> > > separate
> > > probably leads to some of the confusion we're seeing over the goals
> > > of this
> > > project.
> > >
> > >
> > > -K
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are
> > > > missing
> > > > out on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
> > > >
> > > > Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list
> > > > without
> > > > reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a
> > > > large
> > > > part of the community in the dark. Now that we have a distinct
> > > > list
> > > > for
> > > > proton there is the possibility of yet more fragmentation.
> > > >
> > > > I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list
> > > > for
> > > > discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that
> > > > cross-cut
> > > > different components or that would benefit from wider
> > > > participation.
> > > > Not
> > > > all topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is
> > > > always
> > > > going to be the case.
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume
> > > > that
> > > > this would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of
> > > > subject
> > > > could help people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I
> > > > think
> > > > do
> > > > warrant their own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be
> > > > avoided
> > > > if
> > > > so desired).
> > > >
> > > > Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being
> > > > deluged
> > > > with
> > > > unwanted emails?
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>.
IMO Proton would benefit from the one list approach as it will be
exposed to a wider audience.
I believe Gordon's proposal is motivated by a desire to improve our
communication within the community, rather than an effort to
"rearrange the project".
As it stands a lot of people are unaware of proton's existence (let
alone it's goals or how it fits in the large scheme of Qpid).
To me that is a larger issue than the confusion around proton or it's goals.
Lets first build awareness. It doesn't matter how good proton is, if
nobody knows about it!
Rajith
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Rafael Schloming <rh...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> I think you raise a good point about the goals of the project being
> confused, but don't think the cause here is mailing lists. As we've seen,
> recent threads have asked about "qpid vs proton", and to a lot of us this
> is an odd thing to ask about because we think of proton as part of qpid.
> However we who are close to the project also think of qpid as something
> that is larger than just a broker. The project goals/identity issue in my
> mind has very little to do with the lists and more to do with the fact that
> many people think of qpid == broker, qpid cpp == cpp broker, and qpid java
> == java broker. While this understanding may have been more or less true at
> one point, it is now and going forward a misconception, yet we have done
> nothing to educate our users about this. I think this is really at the core
> of the identity issues, and if anything a separate proton list has helped
> raise these issues to the surface, because at least it is clear that proton
> is something that is self contained and distinct from the cpp broker and
> the java broker.
>
> I would hate to lose that distinction and have it all turn into one big
> jumbled muddle. I think rearranging the lists is not a substitute for
> rearranging the project and actively communicating about its structure. I
> may be in the minority with my -1, but I think there is actually a lot more
> work that needs to be done surrounding project structure, identity,
> documentation, communication, etc, and simply rearranging lists without
> doing the rest of that work is IMHO jumping the gun.
>
> --Rafael
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Ken Giusti <kg...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm in favor of combining them all into one.
>>
>> If not that, then at least collapse the "proton" list. The level of
>> traffic on that list isn't unreasonable, and, frankly, keeping it separate
>> probably leads to some of the confusion we're seeing over the goals of this
>> project.
>>
>>
>> -K
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> > I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing
>> > out on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
>> >
>> > Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list
>> > without
>> > reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a
>> > large
>> > part of the community in the dark. Now that we have a distinct list
>> > for
>> > proton there is the possibility of yet more fragmentation.
>> >
>> > I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list for
>> > discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that cross-cut
>> > different components or that would benefit from wider participation.
>> > Not
>> > all topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is always
>> > going to be the case.
>> >
>> > It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume
>> > that
>> > this would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of subject
>> > could help people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I think
>> > do
>> > warrant their own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be avoided
>> > if
>> > so desired).
>> >
>> > Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged
>> > with
>> > unwanted emails?
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 01/18/2013 08:23 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> I think rearranging the lists is not a substitute for
> rearranging the project and actively communicating about its structure.
I quite agree. My suggestion to consolidate discussions to one list is
not an attempt to imply anything about structure, but simply a way of
improving the flow of information.
> I may be in the minority with my -1, but I think there is actually a
> lot more work that needs to be done surrounding project structure,
> identity, documentation, communication, etc, and simply rearranging
> lists without doing the rest of that work is IMHO jumping the gun.
I don't think having a separate mailing list is the right way to ensure
the proton toolkit remains distinct and self contained. That is done
much more effectively through svn structure, build & release processes
and as you very rightly point out, better documentation and communication.
I believe communication will be simpler and more effective with one
list. I believe a less fragmented discussion will more quickly lead to
question being raised and answered and consensus and common
understanding growing.
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 01/18/2013 08:23 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> I think rearranging the lists is not a substitute for
> rearranging the project and actively communicating about its structure.
I quite agree. My suggestion to consolidate discussions to one list is
not an attempt to imply anything about structure, but simply a way of
improving the flow of information.
> I may be in the minority with my -1, but I think there is actually a
> lot more work that needs to be done surrounding project structure,
> identity, documentation, communication, etc, and simply rearranging
> lists without doing the rest of that work is IMHO jumping the gun.
I don't think having a separate mailing list is the right way to ensure
the proton toolkit remains distinct and self contained. That is done
much more effectively through svn structure, build & release processes
and as you very rightly point out, better documentation and communication.
I believe communication will be simpler and more effective with one
list. I believe a less fragmented discussion will more quickly lead to
question being raised and answered and consensus and common
understanding growing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Ken Giusti <kg...@redhat.com>.
Hi Rafi,
You raise some good points, but I don't understand how keeping a separate proton list makes it easier to provide a coherent view of the qpid project, especially to newcomers.
As you point out:
> The project goals/identity issue
> in my
> mind has very little to do with the lists and more to do with the
> fact that
> many people think of qpid == broker, qpid cpp == cpp broker, and qpid
> java
> == java broker. While this understanding may have been more or less
> true at
> one point, it is now and going forward a misconception, yet we have
> done
> nothing to educate our users about this.
Agreed, and to that point, I think it would be a very bad precedent to structure the mailing lists into component silos. Wouldn't creating a separate mailing list for, say "qpid-cpp-broker@qpid.apache.org", send exactly the wrong message? Yet "proton@qpid.apache.org" somehow doesn't?
If we really want people to think of QPID as being more than just a cpp broker/java broker/etc, then we should start by revising the very first paragraph of our homepage:
"Introduction
Apache Qpid™ is a cross-platform Enterprise Messaging system which implements the Advanced Message Queuing Protocol (AMQP), providing message brokers written in C++ and Java, along with clients for C++, Java JMS, .Net, Python, and Ruby."
-K
----- Original Message -----
> I think you raise a good point about the goals of the project being
> confused, but don't think the cause here is mailing lists. As we've
> seen,
> recent threads have asked about "qpid vs proton", and to a lot of us
> this
> is an odd thing to ask about because we think of proton as part of
> qpid.
> However we who are close to the project also think of qpid as
> something
> that is larger than just a broker. The project goals/identity issue
> in my
> mind has very little to do with the lists and more to do with the
> fact that
> many people think of qpid == broker, qpid cpp == cpp broker, and qpid
> java
> == java broker. While this understanding may have been more or less
> true at
> one point, it is now and going forward a misconception, yet we have
> done
> nothing to educate our users about this. I think this is really at
> the core
> of the identity issues, and if anything a separate proton list has
> helped
> raise these issues to the surface, because at least it is clear that
> proton
> is something that is self contained and distinct from the cpp broker
> and
> the java broker.
>
> I would hate to lose that distinction and have it all turn into one
> big
> jumbled muddle. I think rearranging the lists is not a substitute for
> rearranging the project and actively communicating about its
> structure. I
> may be in the minority with my -1, but I think there is actually a
> lot more
> work that needs to be done surrounding project structure, identity,
> documentation, communication, etc, and simply rearranging lists
> without
> doing the rest of that work is IMHO jumping the gun.
>
> --Rafael
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Ken Giusti <kg...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm in favor of combining them all into one.
> >
> > If not that, then at least collapse the "proton" list. The level
> > of
> > traffic on that list isn't unreasonable, and, frankly, keeping it
> > separate
> > probably leads to some of the confusion we're seeing over the goals
> > of this
> > project.
> >
> >
> > -K
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are
> > > missing
> > > out on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
> > >
> > > Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list
> > > without
> > > reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a
> > > large
> > > part of the community in the dark. Now that we have a distinct
> > > list
> > > for
> > > proton there is the possibility of yet more fragmentation.
> > >
> > > I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list
> > > for
> > > discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that
> > > cross-cut
> > > different components or that would benefit from wider
> > > participation.
> > > Not
> > > all topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is
> > > always
> > > going to be the case.
> > >
> > > It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume
> > > that
> > > this would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of
> > > subject
> > > could help people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I
> > > think
> > > do
> > > warrant their own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be
> > > avoided
> > > if
> > > so desired).
> > >
> > > Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being
> > > deluged
> > > with
> > > unwanted emails?
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Ken Giusti <kg...@redhat.com>.
Hi Rafi,
You raise some good points, but I don't understand how keeping a separate proton list makes it easier to provide a coherent view of the qpid project, especially to newcomers.
As you point out:
> The project goals/identity issue
> in my
> mind has very little to do with the lists and more to do with the
> fact that
> many people think of qpid == broker, qpid cpp == cpp broker, and qpid
> java
> == java broker. While this understanding may have been more or less
> true at
> one point, it is now and going forward a misconception, yet we have
> done
> nothing to educate our users about this.
Agreed, and to that point, I think it would be a very bad precedent to structure the mailing lists into component silos. Wouldn't creating a separate mailing list for, say "qpid-cpp-broker@qpid.apache.org", send exactly the wrong message? Yet "proton@qpid.apache.org" somehow doesn't?
If we really want people to think of QPID as being more than just a cpp broker/java broker/etc, then we should start by revising the very first paragraph of our homepage:
"Introduction
Apache Qpid™ is a cross-platform Enterprise Messaging system which implements the Advanced Message Queuing Protocol (AMQP), providing message brokers written in C++ and Java, along with clients for C++, Java JMS, .Net, Python, and Ruby."
-K
----- Original Message -----
> I think you raise a good point about the goals of the project being
> confused, but don't think the cause here is mailing lists. As we've
> seen,
> recent threads have asked about "qpid vs proton", and to a lot of us
> this
> is an odd thing to ask about because we think of proton as part of
> qpid.
> However we who are close to the project also think of qpid as
> something
> that is larger than just a broker. The project goals/identity issue
> in my
> mind has very little to do with the lists and more to do with the
> fact that
> many people think of qpid == broker, qpid cpp == cpp broker, and qpid
> java
> == java broker. While this understanding may have been more or less
> true at
> one point, it is now and going forward a misconception, yet we have
> done
> nothing to educate our users about this. I think this is really at
> the core
> of the identity issues, and if anything a separate proton list has
> helped
> raise these issues to the surface, because at least it is clear that
> proton
> is something that is self contained and distinct from the cpp broker
> and
> the java broker.
>
> I would hate to lose that distinction and have it all turn into one
> big
> jumbled muddle. I think rearranging the lists is not a substitute for
> rearranging the project and actively communicating about its
> structure. I
> may be in the minority with my -1, but I think there is actually a
> lot more
> work that needs to be done surrounding project structure, identity,
> documentation, communication, etc, and simply rearranging lists
> without
> doing the rest of that work is IMHO jumping the gun.
>
> --Rafael
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Ken Giusti <kg...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm in favor of combining them all into one.
> >
> > If not that, then at least collapse the "proton" list. The level
> > of
> > traffic on that list isn't unreasonable, and, frankly, keeping it
> > separate
> > probably leads to some of the confusion we're seeing over the goals
> > of this
> > project.
> >
> >
> > -K
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are
> > > missing
> > > out on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
> > >
> > > Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list
> > > without
> > > reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a
> > > large
> > > part of the community in the dark. Now that we have a distinct
> > > list
> > > for
> > > proton there is the possibility of yet more fragmentation.
> > >
> > > I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list
> > > for
> > > discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that
> > > cross-cut
> > > different components or that would benefit from wider
> > > participation.
> > > Not
> > > all topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is
> > > always
> > > going to be the case.
> > >
> > > It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume
> > > that
> > > this would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of
> > > subject
> > > could help people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I
> > > think
> > > do
> > > warrant their own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be
> > > avoided
> > > if
> > > so desired).
> > >
> > > Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being
> > > deluged
> > > with
> > > unwanted emails?
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Ken Giusti <kg...@redhat.com>.
Hi Rafi,
You raise some good points, but I don't understand how keeping a separate proton list makes it easier to provide a coherent view of the qpid project, especially to newcomers.
As you point out:
> The project goals/identity issue
> in my
> mind has very little to do with the lists and more to do with the
> fact that
> many people think of qpid == broker, qpid cpp == cpp broker, and qpid
> java
> == java broker. While this understanding may have been more or less
> true at
> one point, it is now and going forward a misconception, yet we have
> done
> nothing to educate our users about this.
Agreed, and to that point, I think it would be a very bad precedent to structure the mailing lists into component silos. Wouldn't creating a separate mailing list for, say "qpid-cpp-broker@qpid.apache.org", send exactly the wrong message? Yet "proton@qpid.apache.org" somehow doesn't?
If we really want people to think of QPID as being more than just a cpp broker/java broker/etc, then we should start by revising the very first paragraph of our homepage:
"Introduction
Apache Qpid™ is a cross-platform Enterprise Messaging system which implements the Advanced Message Queuing Protocol (AMQP), providing message brokers written in C++ and Java, along with clients for C++, Java JMS, .Net, Python, and Ruby."
-K
----- Original Message -----
> I think you raise a good point about the goals of the project being
> confused, but don't think the cause here is mailing lists. As we've
> seen,
> recent threads have asked about "qpid vs proton", and to a lot of us
> this
> is an odd thing to ask about because we think of proton as part of
> qpid.
> However we who are close to the project also think of qpid as
> something
> that is larger than just a broker. The project goals/identity issue
> in my
> mind has very little to do with the lists and more to do with the
> fact that
> many people think of qpid == broker, qpid cpp == cpp broker, and qpid
> java
> == java broker. While this understanding may have been more or less
> true at
> one point, it is now and going forward a misconception, yet we have
> done
> nothing to educate our users about this. I think this is really at
> the core
> of the identity issues, and if anything a separate proton list has
> helped
> raise these issues to the surface, because at least it is clear that
> proton
> is something that is self contained and distinct from the cpp broker
> and
> the java broker.
>
> I would hate to lose that distinction and have it all turn into one
> big
> jumbled muddle. I think rearranging the lists is not a substitute for
> rearranging the project and actively communicating about its
> structure. I
> may be in the minority with my -1, but I think there is actually a
> lot more
> work that needs to be done surrounding project structure, identity,
> documentation, communication, etc, and simply rearranging lists
> without
> doing the rest of that work is IMHO jumping the gun.
>
> --Rafael
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Ken Giusti <kg...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm in favor of combining them all into one.
> >
> > If not that, then at least collapse the "proton" list. The level
> > of
> > traffic on that list isn't unreasonable, and, frankly, keeping it
> > separate
> > probably leads to some of the confusion we're seeing over the goals
> > of this
> > project.
> >
> >
> > -K
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are
> > > missing
> > > out on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
> > >
> > > Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list
> > > without
> > > reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a
> > > large
> > > part of the community in the dark. Now that we have a distinct
> > > list
> > > for
> > > proton there is the possibility of yet more fragmentation.
> > >
> > > I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list
> > > for
> > > discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that
> > > cross-cut
> > > different components or that would benefit from wider
> > > participation.
> > > Not
> > > all topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is
> > > always
> > > going to be the case.
> > >
> > > It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume
> > > that
> > > this would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of
> > > subject
> > > could help people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I
> > > think
> > > do
> > > warrant their own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be
> > > avoided
> > > if
> > > so desired).
> > >
> > > Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being
> > > deluged
> > > with
> > > unwanted emails?
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Rafael Schloming <rh...@alum.mit.edu>.
I think you raise a good point about the goals of the project being
confused, but don't think the cause here is mailing lists. As we've seen,
recent threads have asked about "qpid vs proton", and to a lot of us this
is an odd thing to ask about because we think of proton as part of qpid.
However we who are close to the project also think of qpid as something
that is larger than just a broker. The project goals/identity issue in my
mind has very little to do with the lists and more to do with the fact that
many people think of qpid == broker, qpid cpp == cpp broker, and qpid java
== java broker. While this understanding may have been more or less true at
one point, it is now and going forward a misconception, yet we have done
nothing to educate our users about this. I think this is really at the core
of the identity issues, and if anything a separate proton list has helped
raise these issues to the surface, because at least it is clear that proton
is something that is self contained and distinct from the cpp broker and
the java broker.
I would hate to lose that distinction and have it all turn into one big
jumbled muddle. I think rearranging the lists is not a substitute for
rearranging the project and actively communicating about its structure. I
may be in the minority with my -1, but I think there is actually a lot more
work that needs to be done surrounding project structure, identity,
documentation, communication, etc, and simply rearranging lists without
doing the rest of that work is IMHO jumping the gun.
--Rafael
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Ken Giusti <kg...@redhat.com> wrote:
> I'm in favor of combining them all into one.
>
> If not that, then at least collapse the "proton" list. The level of
> traffic on that list isn't unreasonable, and, frankly, keeping it separate
> probably leads to some of the confusion we're seeing over the goals of this
> project.
>
>
> -K
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing
> > out on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
> >
> > Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list
> > without
> > reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a
> > large
> > part of the community in the dark. Now that we have a distinct list
> > for
> > proton there is the possibility of yet more fragmentation.
> >
> > I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list for
> > discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that cross-cut
> > different components or that would benefit from wider participation.
> > Not
> > all topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is always
> > going to be the case.
> >
> > It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume
> > that
> > this would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of subject
> > could help people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I think
> > do
> > warrant their own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be avoided
> > if
> > so desired).
> >
> > Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged
> > with
> > unwanted emails?
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Rafael Schloming <rh...@alum.mit.edu>.
I think you raise a good point about the goals of the project being
confused, but don't think the cause here is mailing lists. As we've seen,
recent threads have asked about "qpid vs proton", and to a lot of us this
is an odd thing to ask about because we think of proton as part of qpid.
However we who are close to the project also think of qpid as something
that is larger than just a broker. The project goals/identity issue in my
mind has very little to do with the lists and more to do with the fact that
many people think of qpid == broker, qpid cpp == cpp broker, and qpid java
== java broker. While this understanding may have been more or less true at
one point, it is now and going forward a misconception, yet we have done
nothing to educate our users about this. I think this is really at the core
of the identity issues, and if anything a separate proton list has helped
raise these issues to the surface, because at least it is clear that proton
is something that is self contained and distinct from the cpp broker and
the java broker.
I would hate to lose that distinction and have it all turn into one big
jumbled muddle. I think rearranging the lists is not a substitute for
rearranging the project and actively communicating about its structure. I
may be in the minority with my -1, but I think there is actually a lot more
work that needs to be done surrounding project structure, identity,
documentation, communication, etc, and simply rearranging lists without
doing the rest of that work is IMHO jumping the gun.
--Rafael
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Ken Giusti <kg...@redhat.com> wrote:
> I'm in favor of combining them all into one.
>
> If not that, then at least collapse the "proton" list. The level of
> traffic on that list isn't unreasonable, and, frankly, keeping it separate
> probably leads to some of the confusion we're seeing over the goals of this
> project.
>
>
> -K
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing
> > out on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
> >
> > Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list
> > without
> > reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a
> > large
> > part of the community in the dark. Now that we have a distinct list
> > for
> > proton there is the possibility of yet more fragmentation.
> >
> > I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list for
> > discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that cross-cut
> > different components or that would benefit from wider participation.
> > Not
> > all topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is always
> > going to be the case.
> >
> > It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume
> > that
> > this would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of subject
> > could help people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I think
> > do
> > warrant their own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be avoided
> > if
> > so desired).
> >
> > Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged
> > with
> > unwanted emails?
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Rafael Schloming <rh...@alum.mit.edu>.
I think you raise a good point about the goals of the project being
confused, but don't think the cause here is mailing lists. As we've seen,
recent threads have asked about "qpid vs proton", and to a lot of us this
is an odd thing to ask about because we think of proton as part of qpid.
However we who are close to the project also think of qpid as something
that is larger than just a broker. The project goals/identity issue in my
mind has very little to do with the lists and more to do with the fact that
many people think of qpid == broker, qpid cpp == cpp broker, and qpid java
== java broker. While this understanding may have been more or less true at
one point, it is now and going forward a misconception, yet we have done
nothing to educate our users about this. I think this is really at the core
of the identity issues, and if anything a separate proton list has helped
raise these issues to the surface, because at least it is clear that proton
is something that is self contained and distinct from the cpp broker and
the java broker.
I would hate to lose that distinction and have it all turn into one big
jumbled muddle. I think rearranging the lists is not a substitute for
rearranging the project and actively communicating about its structure. I
may be in the minority with my -1, but I think there is actually a lot more
work that needs to be done surrounding project structure, identity,
documentation, communication, etc, and simply rearranging lists without
doing the rest of that work is IMHO jumping the gun.
--Rafael
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Ken Giusti <kg...@redhat.com> wrote:
> I'm in favor of combining them all into one.
>
> If not that, then at least collapse the "proton" list. The level of
> traffic on that list isn't unreasonable, and, frankly, keeping it separate
> probably leads to some of the confusion we're seeing over the goals of this
> project.
>
>
> -K
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing
> > out on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
> >
> > Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list
> > without
> > reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a
> > large
> > part of the community in the dark. Now that we have a distinct list
> > for
> > proton there is the possibility of yet more fragmentation.
> >
> > I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list for
> > discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that cross-cut
> > different components or that would benefit from wider participation.
> > Not
> > all topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is always
> > going to be the case.
> >
> > It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume
> > that
> > this would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of subject
> > could help people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I think
> > do
> > warrant their own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be avoided
> > if
> > so desired).
> >
> > Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged
> > with
> > unwanted emails?
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Ken Giusti <kg...@redhat.com>.
I'm in favor of combining them all into one.
If not that, then at least collapse the "proton" list. The level of traffic on that list isn't unreasonable, and, frankly, keeping it separate probably leads to some of the confusion we're seeing over the goals of this project.
-K
----- Original Message -----
> I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing
> out on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
>
> Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list
> without
> reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a
> large
> part of the community in the dark. Now that we have a distinct list
> for
> proton there is the possibility of yet more fragmentation.
>
> I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list for
> discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that cross-cut
> different components or that would benefit from wider participation.
> Not
> all topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is always
> going to be the case.
>
> It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume
> that
> this would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of subject
> could help people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I think
> do
> warrant their own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be avoided
> if
> so desired).
>
> Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged
> with
> unwanted emails?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Ken Giusti <kg...@redhat.com>.
I'm in favor of combining them all into one.
If not that, then at least collapse the "proton" list. The level of traffic on that list isn't unreasonable, and, frankly, keeping it separate probably leads to some of the confusion we're seeing over the goals of this project.
-K
----- Original Message -----
> I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing
> out on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
>
> Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list
> without
> reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a
> large
> part of the community in the dark. Now that we have a distinct list
> for
> proton there is the possibility of yet more fragmentation.
>
> I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list for
> discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that cross-cut
> different components or that would benefit from wider participation.
> Not
> all topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is always
> going to be the case.
>
> It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume
> that
> this would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of subject
> could help people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I think
> do
> warrant their own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be avoided
> if
> so desired).
>
> Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged
> with
> unwanted emails?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>
Re: mailing lists and fragmented communication
Posted by Ken Giusti <kg...@redhat.com>.
I'm in favor of combining them all into one.
If not that, then at least collapse the "proton" list. The level of traffic on that list isn't unreasonable, and, frankly, keeping it separate probably leads to some of the confusion we're seeing over the goals of this project.
-K
----- Original Message -----
> I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing
> out on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
>
> Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list
> without
> reflecting any of the discussion back to the user list, keeping a
> large
> part of the community in the dark. Now that we have a distinct list
> for
> proton there is the possibility of yet more fragmentation.
>
> I honestly believe that we would be better off with just one list for
> discussions. I think there will increasingly be issues that cross-cut
> different components or that would benefit from wider participation.
> Not
> all topics will be of interest to all subscribers, but that is always
> going to be the case.
>
> It doesn't seem to me like any of the lists are so high in volume
> that
> this would cause significant problems. More rigorous use of subject
> could help people filter if needed. (JIRA and commit notices I think
> do
> warrant their own lists allowing a lot of the 'noise' to be avoided
> if
> so desired).
>
> Any other thoughts on this? Does anyone have fears of being deluged
> with
> unwanted emails?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org