You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com> on 2011/08/08 18:01:36 UTC
Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
On 8 August 2011 16:14, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> From my perspective, I don't see the one BIG list as bad, but it would be
> VERY helpful if folks could label messages more succinctly and restrict
> discussion to rather specific aspects.
+1
Not to mention useful subject lines (take a look at what the original
subject was for the thread I took this from - I didn't edit the
original and it is not truncated)
> And, documenting what's been discussed is CRITICAL! It is madness to try to
> sift through these messages to get to the "implementable" aspects.
+1
I really like the practice I see in some communities where someone
will take long rambling threads and post a "[summary] foo bar" mail
the the thread periodically. This is brilliant for those needing to
catch up and also acts as a description of "impementable" conclusions
and community consensus that is emerging.
Ross
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 9:45 AM, TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> On 8/13/2011 08:37, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 6:11 AM, TJ Frazier<tj...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8/12/2011 08:47, Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 2011/8/12 Jürgen Schmidt<jo...@googlemail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Simon Phipps<si...@webmink.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe. But I see no reason why this list needs the protection of being
>>>>>> on a
>>>>>> controlled access page and would suggest doing so is what needs
>>>>>> justifying.
>>>>>> I have not seen a reasoned counter to my proposal for it to be on the
>>>>>> community wiki, so will probably create such a page soon (unless
>>>>>> someone
>>>>>> else wants to).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think Rob has already pointed out why the list of tags besides the
>>>>> mailing
>>>>> list is a good idea and i support it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just so that silence isn't assumed to be assent, I think both Rob and
>>>> Simon have good points, but I support the idea of putting the list of
>>>> tags in a location that's more accessible to new contributions (ie,
>>>> the wiki), even if that means it has to be one extra click for folk
>>>> who visit the website.
>>>>
>>>> Noirin
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The recent changes to the ML page provide an accidental illustration of
>>> why
>>> most things belong on the wiki: web pages tend to get shabby and
>>> out-of-date.
>>>
>>> The ML page[1] changes were very nicely done. Following the "these
>>> guidelines" link like a good little newbie led me to the ASF page[2] on
>>> email tips. In the "Other email guidelines" section, I also followed the
>>> links; one[3] gave me a 404 error. Link rot.
>>>
>>> My hypothesis — I call it the Curse of the Web Page — is that such decay
>>> is
>>> inevitable in a high-barrier-to-change environment, without a dedicated
>>> corps of maintainers (a dull job). Old hands (who could fix things) are
>>> unlikely to access the page at all (they already know this stuff), or
>>> they're looking for something specific and wouldn't notice problems
>>> elsewhere. Newbies, mousing around, /will/ notice, but can't fix it. The
>>> Curse is not limited to links: typos, spelling, and other infelicities
>>> are
>>> all evident on Apache pages; they need a little TLC.
>>>
>>
>> The way to deal with dead links is to run a link checker on the site
>> occasionally. That does far better than a casual user will do to find
>> these kinds of issues. Then you can fix them all in one batch. I
>> assume OO.org already did something like this? Even major sites that
>> depend on crowd sourcing editing, like Wikipedia, rely on bots to
>> detect dead links.
>>
>> Think of it this way: You've heard of Linus's Law : "given enough
>> eyesballs, all bugs shallow", right? But that doesn't mean that you
>> ignore compiler warnings. Automated checking has an important role as
>> well.
>>
>>> On a wiki, the technically adept newbie might fix the problem right
>>> there;
>>> others would just leave a note on the Talk page.
>>>
>>
>> How would you fix it in this case? Our page links to a valid page
>> outside our project, right? And then that external page has a broken
>> link. Even if our project used a wiki for our mailing list page,
>> there is no way we could fix this problem from within our wiki.
>
> The Curse applies not just to AOOo, or the Incubator, but to the whole ASF —
> and so do the hallowed rites of propitiation. That is, their page should
> have been on /their/ wiki, for easy fixing / noting.
>
> Dead links are only one problem. Some of the other glitches are subject to
> automatic detection: spelling, for example. I don't know what the CMS editor
> offers; the MW editor does pretty well. Still, it is amazing how many people
> ignore spell-checkers, even in their email clients.
>
> Other glitches still need eyeballs: there / their / they're, &c. (The
> grammar-checking folks are working on this, but ...) My point is that newbie
> eyeballs are most likely to see glitches, and newbies should have an easy
> way to fix or note the glitch. A wiki provides this.
>
Yes, a wiki makes it easier/faster to make corrections. But it also
makes it easier/faster to enter errors. And a wiki that is wide open
to allow anyone to enter fixes is also wide open to allow anyone to
enter errors, or spam. A wiki as technology is neutral with respect
to quality.
Think of it this way, if you take typing lessons, that would make it
easier/faster for you to program. But would that make the quality of
the code better? Of course not.
If the goal is to improve the quality of the wiki, then let's start a
thread on that. We can learn a lot from Wikipedia there. Things like
bad links and spelling and structural errors are often dealt with by
bots. Humans are best used for higher level tasks, like finding
subtle bugs in the logic of a program, or rewriting a poorly written
wiki page to make it clearer.
>>
>>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html
>>> [2] http://www.apache.org/dev/contrib-email-tips.html
>>> [3]
>>>
>>> http://cocoon.apache.org/community/contrib.html#Contribution+Notes+and+Tips
>>> (busted link, 404)
>>> --
>>> /tj/
>
> --
> /tj/
>
> "Dun stopper torque wet strainers." /Ladle Rat Rotten Hut/
>
>
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com>.
On 8/13/2011 08:37, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 6:11 AM, TJ Frazier<tj...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>> On 8/12/2011 08:47, Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
>>>
>>> 2011/8/12 Jürgen Schmidt<jo...@googlemail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Simon Phipps<si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe. But I see no reason why this list needs the protection of being
>>>>> on a
>>>>> controlled access page and would suggest doing so is what needs
>>>>> justifying.
>>>>> I have not seen a reasoned counter to my proposal for it to be on the
>>>>> community wiki, so will probably create such a page soon (unless someone
>>>>> else wants to).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think Rob has already pointed out why the list of tags besides the
>>>> mailing
>>>> list is a good idea and i support it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just so that silence isn't assumed to be assent, I think both Rob and
>>> Simon have good points, but I support the idea of putting the list of
>>> tags in a location that's more accessible to new contributions (ie,
>>> the wiki), even if that means it has to be one extra click for folk
>>> who visit the website.
>>>
>>> Noirin
>>>
>>>
>> The recent changes to the ML page provide an accidental illustration of why
>> most things belong on the wiki: web pages tend to get shabby and
>> out-of-date.
>>
>> The ML page[1] changes were very nicely done. Following the "these
>> guidelines" link like a good little newbie led me to the ASF page[2] on
>> email tips. In the "Other email guidelines" section, I also followed the
>> links; one[3] gave me a 404 error. Link rot.
>>
>> My hypothesis — I call it the Curse of the Web Page — is that such decay is
>> inevitable in a high-barrier-to-change environment, without a dedicated
>> corps of maintainers (a dull job). Old hands (who could fix things) are
>> unlikely to access the page at all (they already know this stuff), or
>> they're looking for something specific and wouldn't notice problems
>> elsewhere. Newbies, mousing around, /will/ notice, but can't fix it. The
>> Curse is not limited to links: typos, spelling, and other infelicities are
>> all evident on Apache pages; they need a little TLC.
>>
>
> The way to deal with dead links is to run a link checker on the site
> occasionally. That does far better than a casual user will do to find
> these kinds of issues. Then you can fix them all in one batch. I
> assume OO.org already did something like this? Even major sites that
> depend on crowd sourcing editing, like Wikipedia, rely on bots to
> detect dead links.
>
> Think of it this way: You've heard of Linus's Law : "given enough
> eyesballs, all bugs shallow", right? But that doesn't mean that you
> ignore compiler warnings. Automated checking has an important role as
> well.
>
>> On a wiki, the technically adept newbie might fix the problem right there;
>> others would just leave a note on the Talk page.
>>
>
> How would you fix it in this case? Our page links to a valid page
> outside our project, right? And then that external page has a broken
> link. Even if our project used a wiki for our mailing list page,
> there is no way we could fix this problem from within our wiki.
The Curse applies not just to AOOo, or the Incubator, but to the whole
ASF — and so do the hallowed rites of propitiation. That is, their page
should have been on /their/ wiki, for easy fixing / noting.
Dead links are only one problem. Some of the other glitches are subject
to automatic detection: spelling, for example. I don't know what the CMS
editor offers; the MW editor does pretty well. Still, it is amazing how
many people ignore spell-checkers, even in their email clients.
Other glitches still need eyeballs: there / their / they're, &c. (The
grammar-checking folks are working on this, but ...) My point is that
newbie eyeballs are most likely to see glitches, and newbies should have
an easy way to fix or note the glitch. A wiki provides this.
>
>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html
>> [2] http://www.apache.org/dev/contrib-email-tips.html
>> [3]
>> http://cocoon.apache.org/community/contrib.html#Contribution+Notes+and+Tips
>> (busted link, 404)
>> --
>> /tj/
--
/tj/
"Dun stopper torque wet strainers." /Ladle Rat Rotten Hut/
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 6:11 AM, TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> On 8/12/2011 08:47, Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
>>
>> 2011/8/12 Jürgen Schmidt<jo...@googlemail.com>:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Simon Phipps<si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maybe. But I see no reason why this list needs the protection of being
>>>> on a
>>>> controlled access page and would suggest doing so is what needs
>>>> justifying.
>>>> I have not seen a reasoned counter to my proposal for it to be on the
>>>> community wiki, so will probably create such a page soon (unless someone
>>>> else wants to).
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think Rob has already pointed out why the list of tags besides the
>>> mailing
>>> list is a good idea and i support it.
>>>
>>
>> Just so that silence isn't assumed to be assent, I think both Rob and
>> Simon have good points, but I support the idea of putting the list of
>> tags in a location that's more accessible to new contributions (ie,
>> the wiki), even if that means it has to be one extra click for folk
>> who visit the website.
>>
>> Noirin
>>
>>
> The recent changes to the ML page provide an accidental illustration of why
> most things belong on the wiki: web pages tend to get shabby and
> out-of-date.
>
> The ML page[1] changes were very nicely done. Following the "these
> guidelines" link like a good little newbie led me to the ASF page[2] on
> email tips. In the "Other email guidelines" section, I also followed the
> links; one[3] gave me a 404 error. Link rot.
>
> My hypothesis — I call it the Curse of the Web Page — is that such decay is
> inevitable in a high-barrier-to-change environment, without a dedicated
> corps of maintainers (a dull job). Old hands (who could fix things) are
> unlikely to access the page at all (they already know this stuff), or
> they're looking for something specific and wouldn't notice problems
> elsewhere. Newbies, mousing around, /will/ notice, but can't fix it. The
> Curse is not limited to links: typos, spelling, and other infelicities are
> all evident on Apache pages; they need a little TLC.
>
The way to deal with dead links is to run a link checker on the site
occasionally. That does far better than a casual user will do to find
these kinds of issues. Then you can fix them all in one batch. I
assume OO.org already did something like this? Even major sites that
depend on crowd sourcing editing, like Wikipedia, rely on bots to
detect dead links.
Think of it this way: You've heard of Linus's Law : "given enough
eyesballs, all bugs shallow", right? But that doesn't mean that you
ignore compiler warnings. Automated checking has an important role as
well.
> On a wiki, the technically adept newbie might fix the problem right there;
> others would just leave a note on the Talk page.
>
How would you fix it in this case? Our page links to a valid page
outside our project, right? And then that external page has a broken
link. Even if our project used a wiki for our mailing list page,
there is no way we could fix this problem from within our wiki.
> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html
> [2] http://www.apache.org/dev/contrib-email-tips.html
> [3]
> http://cocoon.apache.org/community/contrib.html#Contribution+Notes+and+Tips
> (busted link, 404)
> --
> /tj/
>
>
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com>.
On 8/12/2011 08:47, Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
> 2011/8/12 Jürgen Schmidt<jo...@googlemail.com>:
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Simon Phipps<si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe. But I see no reason why this list needs the protection of being on a
>>> controlled access page and would suggest doing so is what needs justifying.
>>> I have not seen a reasoned counter to my proposal for it to be on the
>>> community wiki, so will probably create such a page soon (unless someone
>>> else wants to).
>>>
>>
>> I think Rob has already pointed out why the list of tags besides the mailing
>> list is a good idea and i support it.
>>
>
> Just so that silence isn't assumed to be assent, I think both Rob and
> Simon have good points, but I support the idea of putting the list of
> tags in a location that's more accessible to new contributions (ie,
> the wiki), even if that means it has to be one extra click for folk
> who visit the website.
>
> Noirin
>
>
The recent changes to the ML page provide an accidental illustration of
why most things belong on the wiki: web pages tend to get shabby and
out-of-date.
The ML page[1] changes were very nicely done. Following the "these
guidelines" link like a good little newbie led me to the ASF page[2] on
email tips. In the "Other email guidelines" section, I also followed the
links; one[3] gave me a 404 error. Link rot.
My hypothesis — I call it the Curse of the Web Page — is that such decay
is inevitable in a high-barrier-to-change environment, without a
dedicated corps of maintainers (a dull job). Old hands (who could fix
things) are unlikely to access the page at all (they already know this
stuff), or they're looking for something specific and wouldn't notice
problems elsewhere. Newbies, mousing around, /will/ notice, but can't
fix it. The Curse is not limited to links: typos, spelling, and other
infelicities are all evident on Apache pages; they need a little TLC.
On a wiki, the technically adept newbie might fix the problem right
there; others would just leave a note on the Talk page.
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html
[2] http://www.apache.org/dev/contrib-email-tips.html
[3]
http://cocoon.apache.org/community/contrib.html#Contribution+Notes+and+Tips
(busted link, 404)
--
/tj/
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Nóirín Plunkett <no...@apache.org>.
2011/8/12 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe. But I see no reason why this list needs the protection of being on a
>> controlled access page and would suggest doing so is what needs justifying.
>> I have not seen a reasoned counter to my proposal for it to be on the
>> community wiki, so will probably create such a page soon (unless someone
>> else wants to).
>>
>
> I think Rob has already pointed out why the list of tags besides the mailing
> list is a good idea and i support it.
>
Just so that silence isn't assumed to be assent, I think both Rob and
Simon have good points, but I support the idea of putting the list of
tags in a location that's more accessible to new contributions (ie,
the wiki), even if that means it has to be one extra click for folk
who visit the website.
Noirin
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> 2011/8/11 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
>
> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On 10 Aug 2011, at 23:12, Rob Weir wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Ross Gardler <
> > > rgardler@opendirective.com>wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> On 8 August 2011 16:14, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ...
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> From my perspective, I don't see the one BIG list as bad, but it
> > would
> > > be
> > > >>>> VERY helpful if folks could label messages more succinctly and
> > > restrict
> > > >>>> discussion to rather specific aspects.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> +1
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Not to mention useful subject lines (take a look at what the
> original
> > > >>> subject was for the thread I took this from - I didn't edit the
> > > >>> original and it is not truncated)
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> And, documenting what's been discussed is CRITICAL! It is madness
> to
> > > try
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>> sift through these messages to get to the "implementable" aspects.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> +1
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I really like the practice I see in some communities where someone
> > > >>> will take long rambling threads and post a "[summary] foo bar" mail
> > > >>> the the thread periodically. This is brilliant for those needing to
> > > >>> catch up and also acts as a description of "impementable"
> conclusions
> > > >>> and community consensus that is emerging.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Ross
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> Great idea if we could find a volunteer! I tried to do this (only
> > once)
> > > on
> > > >> the "refactoring discussion" but I'll tell you some of these
> > discussions
> > > are
> > > >> SO lengthy it's impossible.
> > > >>
> > > >> Maybe we'll do better (and some good soul will step up for the
> > > documentation
> > > >> aspects) if we can adhere to some discussion standards.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > We have a mailing lists page:
> > > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html
> > > >
> > > > A list of proposed subject tags would fit very well there, after the
> > > > first paragraph. Committers can easily edit this using the Apache
> > > > CMS in their browsers:
> > > >
> > > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/docs/edit-cms.html
> > > >
> > > > For example, I just added the link the email tips earlier today.
> > >
> > > It would be better to put the list of subject tags on the community
> wiki
> > so
> > > that those of us who've not been invited to be committers can also edit
> > it.
> > >
> >
> > where is the problem here, if you want to be a committer you know the
> rules
> > and can follow them. I don't see a real problem if you contribute
> valuable
> > content to the project. If you should have a problem with the iCLA then
> it
> > is your problem.
> >
>
> I'm not sure this is an appropriate topic to discuss here, but that strong
> comment begs a one-time response. Apart from the big, atypical, unmetered
> sign-up at the start of the project (in which I did not participate as I
> have too much respect for the term "committer" at Apache to want to get the
> role that way), the only way I am aware of to become one is to be invited
> by
> the PPMC. I've made a variety of contributions to this Apache project since
> it was proposed and they speak for themselves.
please accept my apologies if you feel attacked. I highly appreciate your
contributions and my comment wasn't against you.
A committer don't have to be a code committer only as you know, so i don't
see a problem for you to become a committer.
> As for the ICLA, I have not
> commented on it, I am not sure what you're implying and I suggest you avoid
> further accusations.
>
forget it, it was a stupid comment from my side. Probably my long history
and the never ending story around the former SCA makes me sensitive and i
think it's simply annoying when people don't want to become a committer
because of the iCLA. I know that is not true for you. So again sorry.
>
>
> > And by the way new tags will or should be discussed here anyway and
> > probably some of the committers will add new approved tags quite fast.
> >
>
> Maybe. But I see no reason why this list needs the protection of being on a
> controlled access page and would suggest doing so is what needs justifying.
> I have not seen a reasoned counter to my proposal for it to be on the
> community wiki, so will probably create such a page soon (unless someone
> else wants to).
>
I think Rob has already pointed out why the list of tags besides the mailing
list is a good idea and i support it.
Juergen
> S.
>
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 08/13/2011 12:33 PM, schrieb Jean Hollis Weber:
> On Fri, 2011-08-12 at 12:08 -0400, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>
>> This is not a zero sum topic. Personally, I think the most useful
>> solution would be:
>>
>> - an open wiki where a folksonomy can grow and have discussion, and lead
>> to some obvious suggestions for later inclusion in...
>>
>> - a public-facing official webpage that directly introduces the world to
>> our mailing lists and the expected behavior on them
>
> +1
> This is the most useful comment I've seen for awhile on this thread
> about topic subject tags.
>
> --Jean
Indeed, so +1
Marcus
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, 2011-08-12 at 12:08 -0400, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> This is not a zero sum topic. Personally, I think the most useful
> solution would be:
>
> - an open wiki where a folksonomy can grow and have discussion, and lead
> to some obvious suggestions for later inclusion in...
>
> - a public-facing official webpage that directly introduces the world to
> our mailing lists and the expected behavior on them
+1
This is the most useful comment I've seen for awhile on this thread
about topic subject tags.
--Jean
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
Whoa, let's all take a brief pause and tone down the instant disagreements.
Seriously. This will wait for a day or two.
Plus, heated discussions over who did what where and when are... not
very useful. Rob's made a change which is something of an improvement
by updating the mailing-lists.html page. No need to yell for a revert!
Better yet, work together to figure out what else to do that helps, or
best of all, figure out a better way to do the same thing, and then
update various sites to match.
This is not a zero sum topic. Personally, I think the most useful
solution would be:
- an open wiki where a folksonomy can grow and have discussion, and lead
to some obvious suggestions for later inclusion in...
- a public-facing official webpage that directly introduces the world to
our mailing lists and the expected behavior on them
- Shane, looking forward to beautiful weather for a beach picnic tonight
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> On 12 Aug 2011, at 16:53, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>>> -1
>>>
>>> Hey, a terrific blow for community there, Rob!
>>>
>>> Please don't ever do that again for a matter under active discussion. Not ever.
>>>
>>> I urge you to revert those changes.
>>>
>>
>> I disagree. Bikeshedding on the list is not an impediment to action.
>> I implemented one of the proposals discussed on the list. It is in
>> SVN. If someone feels strongly, they can revert. But note that in
>> CTR, -1's are invalid unless accompanied by technical objections, a
>> statement of an alternative proposal and a willingness to implement
>> the alternative.
>
> You win, you are indeed a master of standards chess and navigating rules. I am not going to the incredible effort that would be required for me to tinker with what you've done there; the "just submit a patch" thing is too high a barrier for something so minor.
>
Simon, it would be sufficient to put a note on the list with a link to
whatever wiki page you create. I, or any other committer, would be
able to craft an appropriate sentence to work that into the mailing
list page.
> S.
>
>
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 12 Aug 2011, at 16:53, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>> -1
>>
>> Hey, a terrific blow for community there, Rob!
>>
>> Please don't ever do that again for a matter under active discussion. Not ever.
>>
>> I urge you to revert those changes.
>>
>
> I disagree. Bikeshedding on the list is not an impediment to action.
> I implemented one of the proposals discussed on the list. It is in
> SVN. If someone feels strongly, they can revert. But note that in
> CTR, -1's are invalid unless accompanied by technical objections, a
> statement of an alternative proposal and a willingness to implement
> the alternative.
You win, you are indeed a master of standards chess and navigating rules. I am not going to the incredible effort that would be required for me to tinker with what you've done there; the "just submit a patch" thing is too high a barrier for something so minor.
S.
RE: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
It is the unilateral determination of what is bike-shedding and when CTR is appropriate that I object to.
I agree with Shane on the way forward. I don't believe this action is something to simply suck up and ignore as if it didn't happen.
I don't see a veto anywhere. If we've been voting you've trampled over a lot of +1's here.
Cut it out.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 08:53
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> -1
>
> Hey, a terrific blow for community there, Rob!
>
> Please don't ever do that again for a matter under active discussion. Not ever.
>
> I urge you to revert those changes.
>
I disagree. Bikeshedding on the list is not an impediment to action.
I implemented one of the proposals discussed on the list. It is in
SVN. If someone feels strongly, they can revert. But note that in
CTR, -1's are invalid unless accompanied by technical objections, a
statement of an alternative proposal and a willingness to implement
the alternative.
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 07:57
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Nóirín Plunkett <no...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The range of contributors to the website is identical to the range of
>>> contributors to the wiki. The only difference is in the wiki case
>>> they need to take the additional step to sign up for an account on the
>>> wiki. In other case they merely submit a patch to the mailing list
>>> they are already subscribed to. So in terms of effort, the patch
>>> route is simpler for the contributor.
>>
>> I'm not sure on what basis you make any of those assertions; I
>> certainly disagree.
>>
>> There's a qualitative difference between submitting a patch that
>> someone else has to apply, and having the power to make a change
>> without having to wait for someone else to get to their mail and say
>> it's ok.
>>
>> And, while you could argue either way as to how big the difference is
>> for a single patch, once you get into multiple patches, it seems clear
>> to me that the wiki route is simpler for the contributor.
>>
>
> Well, after a couple days of discussion, I've seen no one step up and
> make these simple additions to the wiki. So whatever "power" the wiki
> has, it seems hypothetical at this point.
>
> I've gone ahead and made the simple addition to the web site. The
> power of CMS is reaffirmed:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html
>
> If someone eventually does decide that it is worth their time to add a
> treatment of this topic to the wiki, I'd be happy to add a link to it
> from that web page, per Simon's suggestion. But I still think this
> works far better as a folksonomy rather than a curated taxonomy.
> Whether it is done on the website or the wiki is really not very
> important. But I think that attempts to enforce a a designed taxonomy
> will be futile. Better to set general guidelines, which is what I've
> done on the website.
>
> -Rob
>
>
>> N
>>
>
>
RE: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Gavin McDonald <ga...@16degrees.com.au>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
> Sent: Saturday, 13 August 2011 2:46 AM
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Nóirín Plunkett <no...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> >> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
> >>> -1
> >>>
> >>> Hey, a terrific blow for community there, Rob!
> >>>
> >>> Please don't ever do that again for a matter under active discussion. Not
> ever.
> >>>
> >>> I urge you to revert those changes.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I disagree. Bikeshedding on the list is not an impediment to action.
> >> I implemented one of the proposals discussed on the list. It is in
> >> SVN. If someone feels strongly, they can revert. But note that in
> >> CTR, -1's are invalid unless accompanied by technical objections, a
> >> statement of an alternative proposal and a willingness to implement
> >> the alternative.
> >>
> >
> > Reverting should really be a last resort. I had a technical objection,
> > a statement of an alternative proposal, and a willingness to implement
> > the alternative.
> >
>
> As I said in my original note, if someone wants to move forward the wiki
> approach they are welcome to do that.
You say that, but which 'wiki' are folks talking about?
If it’s the confluence wiki, fine folks can edit now, if it is the MediWiki wiki
then no they are still going to have to wait a week or so before they can edit
that. I suspect some of the people here are waiting for that 'wiki' (which they
like to call a CMS of sorts)
When people talk 'wiki' they should clarify which one.
Gav...
> If and when they do, we can easily
> add a link to it in the mailing list page. That was Simon's counter-proposal to
> my proposal. That would allow the wiki to contain a lengthier list of topic tags
> while still having some presentation of the core idea on the mailing list page.
> There is nothing that I have done that prevents that. In fact what I've done
> brings us much closer to that approach.
>
> > Granted, I didn't actually say "-1", but I still think it's pretty
> > poor show. Consensus is not "who commits first, wins", and meaningful
> > discussion that's still ongoing less than 48hrs after you made your
> > proposal hardly constitutes "bikeshedding".
> >
> > I'm going out now, but I hope we can see a little more collaboration
> > and a little less bulldozing in the future.
> >
>
>
> If it doesn't break anything and it is easily reversible and it moves things
> forward, then JFDI. The fact that non-committers on the list may still be
> bikeshedding is not an impediment to a committer moving forward.
>
> If you look at the list archives you will see many proposals that have been
> raised, discussed a little and then dropped. They are of the "I propose that
> someone else (not me) do X". Those are far less useful than the "I would like
> to do X" kinds of proposals. But even those are unnecessary in most cases.
> The essence of the Apache meritocracy is that it is a do-ocracy. The direction
> of the project is set by those who step up in do things, not by those who just
> have an opinion on everything. Opinions are valued of course, but opinions
> backed by code rule the day.
>
> If a committer wants to do something, and they don't think it will be
> irreversible or controversial, then JFDI. Don't start a proposal thread merely
> for the sake of it. Sure, if you really want technical feedback and validation,
> then give a detailed proposal. But expect, given the 200 people subscribed
> to the list, that you will almost always get a range of responses, including the
> bikeshedding type. So I'd urge not having discussions on changes, including
> web site changes, unless the committer thinks it necessary.
>
> We trust committers. That is why we voted them in as committers.
> This project is going to make very little progress if we continue to discuss into
> paralysis every proposal that someone makes. JFDI.
>
> The goal of ooo-dev should be to facilitate getting stuff done. It should not
> be to have the greatest number of discussions. Less discussion and more
> progress is a good thing.
>
> Also, it would be good if we were a but more nuanced in our opinions, where
> we do offer them. It is not all +1 or -1. There are gradations in between
> including things like:
>
> +0: 'I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with this.'
>
> -0: 'I won't get in the way, but I'd rather we didn't do this.'
>
> -0.5: 'I don't like this idea, but I can't find any rational justification for my
> feelings.'
>
> ++1: 'Wow! I like this! Let's do it!'
>
> -0.9: 'I really don't like this, but I'm not going to stand in the way if
> everyone else wants to go ahead with it.'
>
> +0.9: 'This is a cool idea and i like it, but I don't have time/the skills
> necessary to help out.'
>
>
> See: http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> In any case, there are 9999 other web pages to discuss and reach consensus
> on. Does anyone care to open a new thread on the next one?
> ;-)
>
> -Rob
>
> > Noirin
> >
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Nóirín Plunkett <no...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>>> -1
>>>
>>> Hey, a terrific blow for community there, Rob!
>>>
>>> Please don't ever do that again for a matter under active discussion. Not ever.
>>>
>>> I urge you to revert those changes.
>>>
>>
>> I disagree. Bikeshedding on the list is not an impediment to action.
>> I implemented one of the proposals discussed on the list. It is in
>> SVN. If someone feels strongly, they can revert. But note that in
>> CTR, -1's are invalid unless accompanied by technical objections, a
>> statement of an alternative proposal and a willingness to implement
>> the alternative.
>>
>
> Reverting should really be a last resort. I had a technical objection,
> a statement of an alternative proposal, and a willingness to implement
> the alternative.
>
As I said in my original note, if someone wants to move forward the
wiki approach they are welcome to do that. If and when they do, we can
easily add a link to it in the mailing list page. That was Simon's
counter-proposal to my proposal. That would allow the wiki to contain
a lengthier list of topic tags while still having some presentation of
the core idea on the mailing list page. There is nothing that I have
done that prevents that. In fact what I've done brings us much closer
to that approach.
> Granted, I didn't actually say "-1", but I still think it's pretty
> poor show. Consensus is not "who commits first, wins", and meaningful
> discussion that's still ongoing less than 48hrs after you made your
> proposal hardly constitutes "bikeshedding".
>
> I'm going out now, but I hope we can see a little more collaboration
> and a little less bulldozing in the future.
>
If it doesn't break anything and it is easily reversible and it moves
things forward, then JFDI. The fact that non-committers on the list
may still be bikeshedding is not an impediment to a committer moving
forward.
If you look at the list archives you will see many proposals that have
been raised, discussed a little and then dropped. They are of the "I
propose that someone else (not me) do X". Those are far less useful
than the "I would like to do X" kinds of proposals. But even those
are unnecessary in most cases. The essence of the Apache meritocracy
is that it is a do-ocracy. The direction of the project is set by
those who step up in do things, not by those who just have an opinion
on everything. Opinions are valued of course, but opinions backed by
code rule the day.
If a committer wants to do something, and they don't think it will be
irreversible or controversial, then JFDI. Don't start a proposal
thread merely for the sake of it. Sure, if you really want technical
feedback and validation, then give a detailed proposal. But expect,
given the 200 people subscribed to the list, that you will almost
always get a range of responses, including the bikeshedding type. So
I'd urge not having discussions on changes, including web site
changes, unless the committer thinks it necessary.
We trust committers. That is why we voted them in as committers.
This project is going to make very little progress if we continue to
discuss into paralysis every proposal that someone makes. JFDI.
The goal of ooo-dev should be to facilitate getting stuff done. It
should not be to have the greatest number of discussions. Less
discussion and more progress is a good thing.
Also, it would be good if we were a but more nuanced in our opinions,
where we do offer them. It is not all +1 or -1. There are gradations
in between including things like:
+0: 'I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with this.'
-0: 'I won't get in the way, but I'd rather we didn't do this.'
-0.5: 'I don't like this idea, but I can't find any rational
justification for my feelings.'
++1: 'Wow! I like this! Let's do it!'
-0.9: 'I really don't like this, but I'm not going to stand in the
way if everyone else wants to go ahead with it.'
+0.9: 'This is a cool idea and i like it, but I don't have
time/the skills necessary to help out.'
See: http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
In any case, there are 9999 other web pages to discuss and reach
consensus on. Does anyone care to open a new thread on the next one?
;-)
-Rob
> Noirin
>
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Nóirín Plunkett <no...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> > <de...@acm.org> wrote:
> >> -1
> >>
> >> Hey, a terrific blow for community there, Rob!
> >>
> >> Please don't ever do that again for a matter under active discussion.
> Not ever.
> >>
> >> I urge you to revert those changes.
> >>
> >
> > I disagree. Bikeshedding on the list is not an impediment to action.
> > I implemented one of the proposals discussed on the list. It is in
> > SVN. If someone feels strongly, they can revert. But note that in
> > CTR, -1's are invalid unless accompanied by technical objections, a
> > statement of an alternative proposal and a willingness to implement
> > the alternative.
> >
>
> Reverting should really be a last resort. I had a technical objection,
> a statement of an alternative proposal, and a willingness to implement
> the alternative.
>
> Granted, I didn't actually say "-1", but I still think it's pretty
> poor show. Consensus is not "who commits first, wins", and meaningful
> discussion that's still ongoing less than 48hrs after you made your
> proposal hardly constitutes "bikeshedding".
>
> I'm going out now, but I hope we can see a little more collaboration
> and a little less bulldozing in the future.
>
> Noirin
>
we discuss a very minor detail in a long thread, maybe some wasted time
because it doesn't really matter where the tags are listed. I personally
agree to the place where Rob has inserted them now. But i can live with the
wiki also.
Let us see it form a different point of view. It belongs to more or less
organizational things or best practices how we want to communicate on our
mailing lists. We probably don't expect too much changes here in the future.
Besides the description of our mailing lists it is a good place because it
is directly related to these lists. So probably no concerns here. The
community wiki is maybe better used for other content where we expect much
more input and more frequent changes.
Is that ok for anybody?
Juergen
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Nóirín Plunkett <no...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>> -1
>>
>> Hey, a terrific blow for community there, Rob!
>>
>> Please don't ever do that again for a matter under active discussion. Not ever.
>>
>> I urge you to revert those changes.
>>
>
> I disagree. Bikeshedding on the list is not an impediment to action.
> I implemented one of the proposals discussed on the list. It is in
> SVN. If someone feels strongly, they can revert. But note that in
> CTR, -1's are invalid unless accompanied by technical objections, a
> statement of an alternative proposal and a willingness to implement
> the alternative.
>
Reverting should really be a last resort. I had a technical objection,
a statement of an alternative proposal, and a willingness to implement
the alternative.
Granted, I didn't actually say "-1", but I still think it's pretty
poor show. Consensus is not "who commits first, wins", and meaningful
discussion that's still ongoing less than 48hrs after you made your
proposal hardly constitutes "bikeshedding".
I'm going out now, but I hope we can see a little more collaboration
and a little less bulldozing in the future.
Noirin
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> -1
>
> Hey, a terrific blow for community there, Rob!
>
> Please don't ever do that again for a matter under active discussion. Not ever.
>
> I urge you to revert those changes.
>
I disagree. Bikeshedding on the list is not an impediment to action.
I implemented one of the proposals discussed on the list. It is in
SVN. If someone feels strongly, they can revert. But note that in
CTR, -1's are invalid unless accompanied by technical objections, a
statement of an alternative proposal and a willingness to implement
the alternative.
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 07:57
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Nóirín Plunkett <no...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The range of contributors to the website is identical to the range of
>>> contributors to the wiki. The only difference is in the wiki case
>>> they need to take the additional step to sign up for an account on the
>>> wiki. In other case they merely submit a patch to the mailing list
>>> they are already subscribed to. So in terms of effort, the patch
>>> route is simpler for the contributor.
>>
>> I'm not sure on what basis you make any of those assertions; I
>> certainly disagree.
>>
>> There's a qualitative difference between submitting a patch that
>> someone else has to apply, and having the power to make a change
>> without having to wait for someone else to get to their mail and say
>> it's ok.
>>
>> And, while you could argue either way as to how big the difference is
>> for a single patch, once you get into multiple patches, it seems clear
>> to me that the wiki route is simpler for the contributor.
>>
>
> Well, after a couple days of discussion, I've seen no one step up and
> make these simple additions to the wiki. So whatever "power" the wiki
> has, it seems hypothetical at this point.
>
> I've gone ahead and made the simple addition to the web site. The
> power of CMS is reaffirmed:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html
>
> If someone eventually does decide that it is worth their time to add a
> treatment of this topic to the wiki, I'd be happy to add a link to it
> from that web page, per Simon's suggestion. But I still think this
> works far better as a folksonomy rather than a curated taxonomy.
> Whether it is done on the website or the wiki is really not very
> important. But I think that attempts to enforce a a designed taxonomy
> will be futile. Better to set general guidelines, which is what I've
> done on the website.
>
> -Rob
>
>
>> N
>>
>
>
RE: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
-1
Hey, a terrific blow for community there, Rob!
Please don't ever do that again for a matter under active discussion. Not ever.
I urge you to revert those changes.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 07:57
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Nóirín Plunkett <no...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
>>
>> The range of contributors to the website is identical to the range of
>> contributors to the wiki. The only difference is in the wiki case
>> they need to take the additional step to sign up for an account on the
>> wiki. In other case they merely submit a patch to the mailing list
>> they are already subscribed to. So in terms of effort, the patch
>> route is simpler for the contributor.
>
> I'm not sure on what basis you make any of those assertions; I
> certainly disagree.
>
> There's a qualitative difference between submitting a patch that
> someone else has to apply, and having the power to make a change
> without having to wait for someone else to get to their mail and say
> it's ok.
>
> And, while you could argue either way as to how big the difference is
> for a single patch, once you get into multiple patches, it seems clear
> to me that the wiki route is simpler for the contributor.
>
Well, after a couple days of discussion, I've seen no one step up and
make these simple additions to the wiki. So whatever "power" the wiki
has, it seems hypothetical at this point.
I've gone ahead and made the simple addition to the web site. The
power of CMS is reaffirmed:
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html
If someone eventually does decide that it is worth their time to add a
treatment of this topic to the wiki, I'd be happy to add a link to it
from that web page, per Simon's suggestion. But I still think this
works far better as a folksonomy rather than a curated taxonomy.
Whether it is done on the website or the wiki is really not very
important. But I think that attempts to enforce a a designed taxonomy
will be futile. Better to set general guidelines, which is what I've
done on the website.
-Rob
> N
>
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Nóirín Plunkett <no...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
>>
>> The range of contributors to the website is identical to the range of
>> contributors to the wiki. The only difference is in the wiki case
>> they need to take the additional step to sign up for an account on the
>> wiki. In other case they merely submit a patch to the mailing list
>> they are already subscribed to. So in terms of effort, the patch
>> route is simpler for the contributor.
>
> I'm not sure on what basis you make any of those assertions; I
> certainly disagree.
>
> There's a qualitative difference between submitting a patch that
> someone else has to apply, and having the power to make a change
> without having to wait for someone else to get to their mail and say
> it's ok.
>
> And, while you could argue either way as to how big the difference is
> for a single patch, once you get into multiple patches, it seems clear
> to me that the wiki route is simpler for the contributor.
>
Well, after a couple days of discussion, I've seen no one step up and
make these simple additions to the wiki. So whatever "power" the wiki
has, it seems hypothetical at this point.
I've gone ahead and made the simple addition to the web site. The
power of CMS is reaffirmed:
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html
If someone eventually does decide that it is worth their time to add a
treatment of this topic to the wiki, I'd be happy to add a link to it
from that web page, per Simon's suggestion. But I still think this
works far better as a folksonomy rather than a curated taxonomy.
Whether it is done on the website or the wiki is really not very
important. But I think that attempts to enforce a a designed taxonomy
will be futile. Better to set general guidelines, which is what I've
done on the website.
-Rob
> N
>
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Nóirín Plunkett <no...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
>
> The range of contributors to the website is identical to the range of
> contributors to the wiki. The only difference is in the wiki case
> they need to take the additional step to sign up for an account on the
> wiki. In other case they merely submit a patch to the mailing list
> they are already subscribed to. So in terms of effort, the patch
> route is simpler for the contributor.
I'm not sure on what basis you make any of those assertions; I
certainly disagree.
There's a qualitative difference between submitting a patch that
someone else has to apply, and having the power to make a change
without having to wait for someone else to get to their mail and say
it's ok.
And, while you could argue either way as to how big the difference is
for a single patch, once you get into multiple patches, it seems clear
to me that the wiki route is simpler for the contributor.
N
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Nóirín Plunkett <no...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm assuming that it is the new list subscriber that benefits most
>> from this. Existing subscribers will just follow the conventions they
>> observe being used on the list. Or do you expect to regularly check
>> the wiki to see what new subject tags Simon has added?
>>
>
> I think it's highly unlikely that the new list subscriber will read
> this in either location; I think the people who are most likely to
> read it are those who've been on the list a few days, see that there
> are a few tags floating around, and that the volume of mail is hectic.
> (Yes, I know the static page says c. 57/day. I also know that most
> people have no concept of what that means as an addition to their
> normal mail flow.)
>
> I expect those people not to be sure what to look for or where, but I
> hope if they've seen a reasonably prominent mention on the static page
> saying "This is a high-volume mailing list. Please use clear, relevant
> subject lines, and consider using an appropriate tag for your mail. A
> list of tags is available at [link].", that they'll figure it out.
>
> I think the value of opening up that list to a broader range of
> contributors is worth the cost of the extra click.
>
The range of contributors to the website is identical to the range of
contributors to the wiki. The only difference is in the wiki case
they need to take the additional step to sign up for an account on the
wiki. In other case they merely submit a patch to the mailing list
they are already subscribed to. So in terms of effort, the patch
route is simpler for the contributor.
> Noirin
>
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Nóirín Plunkett <no...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
>
> I'm assuming that it is the new list subscriber that benefits most
> from this. Existing subscribers will just follow the conventions they
> observe being used on the list. Or do you expect to regularly check
> the wiki to see what new subject tags Simon has added?
>
I think it's highly unlikely that the new list subscriber will read
this in either location; I think the people who are most likely to
read it are those who've been on the list a few days, see that there
are a few tags floating around, and that the volume of mail is hectic.
(Yes, I know the static page says c. 57/day. I also know that most
people have no concept of what that means as an addition to their
normal mail flow.)
I expect those people not to be sure what to look for or where, but I
hope if they've seen a reasonably prominent mention on the static page
saying "This is a high-volume mailing list. Please use clear, relevant
subject lines, and consider using an appropriate tag for your mail. A
list of tags is available at [link].", that they'll figure it out.
I think the value of opening up that list to a broader range of
contributors is worth the cost of the extra click.
Noirin
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Terry Ellison <te...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 12/08/11 02:41, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Jean Weber<je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/08/2011, at 10:25, "Dennis E. Hamilton"<de...@acm.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 on putting materials like the suggested list-post subject categories
>>>> on the community wiki. I see no reason why it needs to be maintained
>>>> anywhere else requiring higher ceremony.
>>>>
>> No one is going to find it on the wiki. The new list subscriber,
>> signing up on the list, is typically going to find the list from this
>> page:
>>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html
>>
> <snip>
>
> I agree that we need a single master URI for the lists as you suggest, but I
> think that "no one is going to find it on the Wiki" underplay the dominance
> of access paths such as google which will find any wiki page on this. My
> point is that is we do have a wiki page than it should link back to the
> master mailing list page.
My point is that no one looks for this kind of information. No one
wakes up and says, "Today I'd like to be a better poster on ooo-dev,
let's search Google for some best practices and follow some links to
find some subject tags". That is not a reasonable expectation. The
best we can hope for is that we get a glance from a new subscriber at
some guidelines at the top of the mailing list page when the user is
searching for info for how to subscribe to the list.
I'm assuming that it is the new list subscriber that benefits most
from this. Existing subscribers will just follow the conventions they
observe being used on the list. Or do you expect to regularly check
the wiki to see what new subject tags Simon has added?
-Rob
>
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Terry Ellison <te...@apache.org>.
On 12/08/11 02:41, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Jean Weber<je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/08/2011, at 10:25, "Dennis E. Hamilton"<de...@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 on putting materials like the suggested list-post subject categories on the community wiki. I see no reason why it needs to be maintained anywhere else requiring higher ceremony.
>>>
> No one is going to find it on the wiki. The new list subscriber,
> signing up on the list, is typically going to find the list from this
> page:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html
>
<snip>
I agree that we need a single master URI for the lists as you suggest,
but I think that "no one is going to find it on the Wiki" underplay the
dominance of access paths such as google which will find any wiki page
on this. My point is that is we do have a wiki page than it should link
back to the master mailing list page.
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by imacat <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>.
So, I'm not the only one that thinks reading this list is a heavy
task. ^^;
On 2011/08/12 10:56, Rob Weir said:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 12 Aug 2011, at 02:41, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/08/2011, at 10:25, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 on putting materials like the suggested list-post subject categories on the community wiki. I see no reason why it needs to be maintained anywhere else requiring higher ceremony.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> No one is going to find it on the wiki. The new list subscriber,
>>> signing up on the list, is typically going to find the list from this
>>> page:
>>>
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html
>>>
>>> That is where the mailing list info is, the instructions on how to
>>> subscribe. That is also where we point to other mailing list
>>> guidelines. It is an ideal place to put the suggested topic tags,
>>> putting the mailing list info together in one place.
>>
>> How about adding a link from there to the wiki?
>>
>
> Because you're going to get negligible click through. You might get
> some visitors to accidentally have their eyeballs glance over the list
> of topic tags if you have it there, in the page, right next to to list
> information that are seeking. They might pick some of this up in
> passing. But I expect that very few visitors will click through to a
> list of topic tags, unless that was the purpose of their visit. And
> most cases it won't be. And if it is actually the purpose of their
> visit, then having the info right there, without requiring a click, is
> even better, right?
>
> Let's do this in a way that makes the website most useful for the
> visitor to the website, rather than falling back to less useful
> approach that may be easier for the author.
>
> You can just submit a patch for the website. This isn't rocket
> science. No iCLA required. You don't even need markdown if you don't
> want to bother. Just post something that looks patch like, e.g.:
>
> -----------------
>
> Subject: [PATCH] Topic tags for ooo-dev mailing list
>
> In first section of the mailing list webpage [1] please add the following:
>
> In order to facilitate automated filtering of threads, etc., mailing
> list posters are requested to clearly identify the topic of their
> posts using one of the following tags:
>
> etc/
>
> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html
>
>
> -----------------
>
> Any committer could then take that enhancement and add it to the
> website. Note that by sending this as a patch you also inform the
> continuing membership of the list of the new topic tags. If you
> merely put that info on the wiki, then it would not be noticed, unless
> of course you sent a note to the list. But in that case, what effort
> have you really saved yourself?
>
>>>
>>> If topic tags are changing at so rapid a rate that updating the
>>> website for them is inconvenient, then we're probably misusing them.
>>> If they are meant to be hints to human readers, then they can be fluid
>>> and change frequently and allow small variations, like Twitter tags.
>>> In that case, there is no need to document them. Subscribers learn
>>> the "folksonomy" by observation. But if they are being used for email
>>> inbox filter rules, hard coded into subscriber mail clients, then
>>> these better be relatively fixed and we lose nothing by putting them
>>> on the website.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> - Dennis
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> Jean
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
--
Best regards,
imacat ^_*' <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>
PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
<<Woman's Voice>> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
OpenOffice.org http://www.openoffice.org/
EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> On 12 Aug 2011, at 02:41, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/08/2011, at 10:25, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 on putting materials like the suggested list-post subject categories on the community wiki. I see no reason why it needs to be maintained anywhere else requiring higher ceremony.
>>>>
>>
>> No one is going to find it on the wiki. The new list subscriber,
>> signing up on the list, is typically going to find the list from this
>> page:
>>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html
>>
>> That is where the mailing list info is, the instructions on how to
>> subscribe. That is also where we point to other mailing list
>> guidelines. It is an ideal place to put the suggested topic tags,
>> putting the mailing list info together in one place.
>
> How about adding a link from there to the wiki?
>
Because you're going to get negligible click through. You might get
some visitors to accidentally have their eyeballs glance over the list
of topic tags if you have it there, in the page, right next to to list
information that are seeking. They might pick some of this up in
passing. But I expect that very few visitors will click through to a
list of topic tags, unless that was the purpose of their visit. And
most cases it won't be. And if it is actually the purpose of their
visit, then having the info right there, without requiring a click, is
even better, right?
Let's do this in a way that makes the website most useful for the
visitor to the website, rather than falling back to less useful
approach that may be easier for the author.
You can just submit a patch for the website. This isn't rocket
science. No iCLA required. You don't even need markdown if you don't
want to bother. Just post something that looks patch like, e.g.:
-----------------
Subject: [PATCH] Topic tags for ooo-dev mailing list
In first section of the mailing list webpage [1] please add the following:
In order to facilitate automated filtering of threads, etc., mailing
list posters are requested to clearly identify the topic of their
posts using one of the following tags:
etc/
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html
-----------------
Any committer could then take that enhancement and add it to the
website. Note that by sending this as a patch you also inform the
continuing membership of the list of the new topic tags. If you
merely put that info on the wiki, then it would not be noticed, unless
of course you sent a note to the list. But in that case, what effort
have you really saved yourself?
>>
>> If topic tags are changing at so rapid a rate that updating the
>> website for them is inconvenient, then we're probably misusing them.
>> If they are meant to be hints to human readers, then they can be fluid
>> and change frequently and allow small variations, like Twitter tags.
>> In that case, there is no need to document them. Subscribers learn
>> the "folksonomy" by observation. But if they are being used for email
>> inbox filter rules, hard coded into subscriber mail clients, then
>> these better be relatively fixed and we lose nothing by putting them
>> on the website.
>>
>>
>>>> - Dennis
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Jean
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 12 Aug 2011, at 02:41, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/08/2011, at 10:25, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 on putting materials like the suggested list-post subject categories on the community wiki. I see no reason why it needs to be maintained anywhere else requiring higher ceremony.
>>>
>
> No one is going to find it on the wiki. The new list subscriber,
> signing up on the list, is typically going to find the list from this
> page:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html
>
> That is where the mailing list info is, the instructions on how to
> subscribe. That is also where we point to other mailing list
> guidelines. It is an ideal place to put the suggested topic tags,
> putting the mailing list info together in one place.
How about adding a link from there to the wiki?
>
> If topic tags are changing at so rapid a rate that updating the
> website for them is inconvenient, then we're probably misusing them.
> If they are meant to be hints to human readers, then they can be fluid
> and change frequently and allow small variations, like Twitter tags.
> In that case, there is no need to document them. Subscribers learn
> the "folksonomy" by observation. But if they are being used for email
> inbox filter rules, hard coded into subscriber mail clients, then
> these better be relatively fixed and we lose nothing by putting them
> on the website.
>
>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Jean
>>
>>
>>
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/08/2011, at 10:25, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>
>> +1 on putting materials like the suggested list-post subject categories on the community wiki. I see no reason why it needs to be maintained anywhere else requiring higher ceremony.
>>
No one is going to find it on the wiki. The new list subscriber,
signing up on the list, is typically going to find the list from this
page:
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html
That is where the mailing list info is, the instructions on how to
subscribe. That is also where we point to other mailing list
guidelines. It is an ideal place to put the suggested topic tags,
putting the mailing list info together in one place.
If topic tags are changing at so rapid a rate that updating the
website for them is inconvenient, then we're probably misusing them.
If they are meant to be hints to human readers, then they can be fluid
and change frequently and allow small variations, like Twitter tags.
In that case, there is no need to document them. Subscribers learn
the "folksonomy" by observation. But if they are being used for email
inbox filter rules, hard coded into subscriber mail clients, then
these better be relatively fixed and we lose nothing by putting them
on the website.
>> - Dennis
>>
>
> +1
>
> Jean
>
>
>
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net>.
Jean Weber wrote:
> On 12/08/2011, at 10:25, "Dennis E. Hamilton"<de...@acm.org> wrote:
>
>> +1 on putting materials like the suggested list-post subject categories on the community wiki. I see no reason why it needs to be maintained anywhere else requiring higher ceremony.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>
> +1
>
> Jean
+1
Andy
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On 12/08/2011, at 10:25, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org> wrote:
> +1 on putting materials like the suggested list-post subject categories on the community wiki. I see no reason why it needs to be maintained anywhere else requiring higher ceremony.
>
> - Dennis
>
+1
Jean
RE: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
+1 on putting materials like the suggested list-post subject categories on the community wiki. I see no reason why it needs to be maintained anywhere else requiring higher ceremony.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Phipps [mailto:simon@webmink.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 15:19
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
2011/8/11 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 10 Aug 2011, at 23:12, Rob Weir wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Ross Gardler <
> > rgardler@opendirective.com>wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On 8 August 2011 16:14, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> ...
> > >>>
> > >>>> From my perspective, I don't see the one BIG list as bad, but it
> would
> > be
> > >>>> VERY helpful if folks could label messages more succinctly and
> > restrict
> > >>>> discussion to rather specific aspects.
> > >>>
> > >>> +1
> > >>>
> > >>> Not to mention useful subject lines (take a look at what the original
> > >>> subject was for the thread I took this from - I didn't edit the
> > >>> original and it is not truncated)
> > >>>
> > >>>> And, documenting what's been discussed is CRITICAL! It is madness to
> > try
> > >>> to
> > >>>> sift through these messages to get to the "implementable" aspects.
> > >>>
> > >>> +1
> > >>>
> > >>> I really like the practice I see in some communities where someone
> > >>> will take long rambling threads and post a "[summary] foo bar" mail
> > >>> the the thread periodically. This is brilliant for those needing to
> > >>> catch up and also acts as a description of "impementable" conclusions
> > >>> and community consensus that is emerging.
> > >>>
> > >>> Ross
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Great idea if we could find a volunteer! I tried to do this (only
> once)
> > on
> > >> the "refactoring discussion" but I'll tell you some of these
> discussions
> > are
> > >> SO lengthy it's impossible.
> > >>
> > >> Maybe we'll do better (and some good soul will step up for the
> > documentation
> > >> aspects) if we can adhere to some discussion standards.
> > >>
> > >
> > > We have a mailing lists page:
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html
> > >
> > > A list of proposed subject tags would fit very well there, after the
> > > first paragraph. Committers can easily edit this using the Apache
> > > CMS in their browsers:
> > >
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/docs/edit-cms.html
> > >
> > > For example, I just added the link the email tips earlier today.
> >
> > It would be better to put the list of subject tags on the community wiki
> so
> > that those of us who've not been invited to be committers can also edit
> it.
> >
>
> where is the problem here, if you want to be a committer you know the rules
> and can follow them. I don't see a real problem if you contribute valuable
> content to the project. If you should have a problem with the iCLA then it
> is your problem.
>
I'm not sure this is an appropriate topic to discuss here, but that strong
comment begs a one-time response. Apart from the big, atypical, unmetered
sign-up at the start of the project (in which I did not participate as I
have too much respect for the term "committer" at Apache to want to get the
role that way), the only way I am aware of to become one is to be invited by
the PPMC. I've made a variety of contributions to this Apache project since
it was proposed and they speak for themselves. As for the ICLA, I have not
commented on it, I am not sure what you're implying and I suggest you avoid
further accusations.
> And by the way new tags will or should be discussed here anyway and
> probably some of the committers will add new approved tags quite fast.
>
Maybe. But I see no reason why this list needs the protection of being on a
controlled access page and would suggest doing so is what needs justifying.
I have not seen a reasoned counter to my proposal for it to be on the
community wiki, so will probably create such a page soon (unless someone
else wants to).
S.
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
2011/8/11 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 10 Aug 2011, at 23:12, Rob Weir wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Ross Gardler <
> > rgardler@opendirective.com>wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On 8 August 2011 16:14, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> ...
> > >>>
> > >>>> From my perspective, I don't see the one BIG list as bad, but it
> would
> > be
> > >>>> VERY helpful if folks could label messages more succinctly and
> > restrict
> > >>>> discussion to rather specific aspects.
> > >>>
> > >>> +1
> > >>>
> > >>> Not to mention useful subject lines (take a look at what the original
> > >>> subject was for the thread I took this from - I didn't edit the
> > >>> original and it is not truncated)
> > >>>
> > >>>> And, documenting what's been discussed is CRITICAL! It is madness to
> > try
> > >>> to
> > >>>> sift through these messages to get to the "implementable" aspects.
> > >>>
> > >>> +1
> > >>>
> > >>> I really like the practice I see in some communities where someone
> > >>> will take long rambling threads and post a "[summary] foo bar" mail
> > >>> the the thread periodically. This is brilliant for those needing to
> > >>> catch up and also acts as a description of "impementable" conclusions
> > >>> and community consensus that is emerging.
> > >>>
> > >>> Ross
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Great idea if we could find a volunteer! I tried to do this (only
> once)
> > on
> > >> the "refactoring discussion" but I'll tell you some of these
> discussions
> > are
> > >> SO lengthy it's impossible.
> > >>
> > >> Maybe we'll do better (and some good soul will step up for the
> > documentation
> > >> aspects) if we can adhere to some discussion standards.
> > >>
> > >
> > > We have a mailing lists page:
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html
> > >
> > > A list of proposed subject tags would fit very well there, after the
> > > first paragraph. Committers can easily edit this using the Apache
> > > CMS in their browsers:
> > >
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/docs/edit-cms.html
> > >
> > > For example, I just added the link the email tips earlier today.
> >
> > It would be better to put the list of subject tags on the community wiki
> so
> > that those of us who've not been invited to be committers can also edit
> it.
> >
>
> where is the problem here, if you want to be a committer you know the rules
> and can follow them. I don't see a real problem if you contribute valuable
> content to the project. If you should have a problem with the iCLA then it
> is your problem.
>
I'm not sure this is an appropriate topic to discuss here, but that strong
comment begs a one-time response. Apart from the big, atypical, unmetered
sign-up at the start of the project (in which I did not participate as I
have too much respect for the term "committer" at Apache to want to get the
role that way), the only way I am aware of to become one is to be invited by
the PPMC. I've made a variety of contributions to this Apache project since
it was proposed and they speak for themselves. As for the ICLA, I have not
commented on it, I am not sure what you're implying and I suggest you avoid
further accusations.
> And by the way new tags will or should be discussed here anyway and
> probably some of the committers will add new approved tags quite fast.
>
Maybe. But I see no reason why this list needs the protection of being on a
controlled access page and would suggest doing so is what needs justifying.
I have not seen a reasoned counter to my proposal for it to be on the
community wiki, so will probably create such a page soon (unless someone
else wants to).
S.
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> On 10 Aug 2011, at 23:12, Rob Weir wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Ross Gardler <
> rgardler@opendirective.com>wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 8 August 2011 16:14, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>>> From my perspective, I don't see the one BIG list as bad, but it would
> be
> >>>> VERY helpful if folks could label messages more succinctly and
> restrict
> >>>> discussion to rather specific aspects.
> >>>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> Not to mention useful subject lines (take a look at what the original
> >>> subject was for the thread I took this from - I didn't edit the
> >>> original and it is not truncated)
> >>>
> >>>> And, documenting what's been discussed is CRITICAL! It is madness to
> try
> >>> to
> >>>> sift through these messages to get to the "implementable" aspects.
> >>>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> I really like the practice I see in some communities where someone
> >>> will take long rambling threads and post a "[summary] foo bar" mail
> >>> the the thread periodically. This is brilliant for those needing to
> >>> catch up and also acts as a description of "impementable" conclusions
> >>> and community consensus that is emerging.
> >>>
> >>> Ross
> >>>
> >>
> >> Great idea if we could find a volunteer! I tried to do this (only once)
> on
> >> the "refactoring discussion" but I'll tell you some of these discussions
> are
> >> SO lengthy it's impossible.
> >>
> >> Maybe we'll do better (and some good soul will step up for the
> documentation
> >> aspects) if we can adhere to some discussion standards.
> >>
> >
> > We have a mailing lists page:
> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html
> >
> > A list of proposed subject tags would fit very well there, after the
> > first paragraph. Committers can easily edit this using the Apache
> > CMS in their browsers:
> >
> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/docs/edit-cms.html
> >
> > For example, I just added the link the email tips earlier today.
>
> It would be better to put the list of subject tags on the community wiki so
> that those of us who've not been invited to be committers can also edit it.
>
where is the problem here, if you want to be a committer you know the rules
and can follow them. I don't see a real problem if you contribute valuable
content to the project. If you should have a problem with the iCLA then it
is your problem.
And by the way new tags will or should be discussed here anyway and
probably some of the committers will add new approved tags quite fast.
Juergen
>
> S.
>
>
>
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 10 Aug 2011, at 23:12, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>wrote:
>>
>>> On 8 August 2011 16:14, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> From my perspective, I don't see the one BIG list as bad, but it would be
>>>> VERY helpful if folks could label messages more succinctly and restrict
>>>> discussion to rather specific aspects.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Not to mention useful subject lines (take a look at what the original
>>> subject was for the thread I took this from - I didn't edit the
>>> original and it is not truncated)
>>>
>>>> And, documenting what's been discussed is CRITICAL! It is madness to try
>>> to
>>>> sift through these messages to get to the "implementable" aspects.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> I really like the practice I see in some communities where someone
>>> will take long rambling threads and post a "[summary] foo bar" mail
>>> the the thread periodically. This is brilliant for those needing to
>>> catch up and also acts as a description of "impementable" conclusions
>>> and community consensus that is emerging.
>>>
>>> Ross
>>>
>>
>> Great idea if we could find a volunteer! I tried to do this (only once) on
>> the "refactoring discussion" but I'll tell you some of these discussions are
>> SO lengthy it's impossible.
>>
>> Maybe we'll do better (and some good soul will step up for the documentation
>> aspects) if we can adhere to some discussion standards.
>>
>
> We have a mailing lists page:
> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html
>
> A list of proposed subject tags would fit very well there, after the
> first paragraph. Committers can easily edit this using the Apache
> CMS in their browsers:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/docs/edit-cms.html
>
> For example, I just added the link the email tips earlier today.
It would be better to put the list of subject tags on the community wiki so that those of us who've not been invited to be committers can also edit it.
S.
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>wrote:
>
>> On 8 August 2011 16:14, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > From my perspective, I don't see the one BIG list as bad, but it would be
>> > VERY helpful if folks could label messages more succinctly and restrict
>> > discussion to rather specific aspects.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Not to mention useful subject lines (take a look at what the original
>> subject was for the thread I took this from - I didn't edit the
>> original and it is not truncated)
>>
>> > And, documenting what's been discussed is CRITICAL! It is madness to try
>> to
>> > sift through these messages to get to the "implementable" aspects.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I really like the practice I see in some communities where someone
>> will take long rambling threads and post a "[summary] foo bar" mail
>> the the thread periodically. This is brilliant for those needing to
>> catch up and also acts as a description of "impementable" conclusions
>> and community consensus that is emerging.
>>
>> Ross
>>
>
> Great idea if we could find a volunteer! I tried to do this (only once) on
> the "refactoring discussion" but I'll tell you some of these discussions are
> SO lengthy it's impossible.
>
> Maybe we'll do better (and some good soul will step up for the documentation
> aspects) if we can adhere to some discussion standards.
>
We have a mailing lists page:
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html
A list of proposed subject tags would fit very well there, after the
first paragraph. Committers can easily edit this using the Apache
CMS in their browsers:
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/docs/edit-cms.html
For example, I just added the link the email tips earlier today.
-Rob
> Let's keep our fingers crossed.
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "Those who love deeply never grow old;
> they may die of old age, but they die young."
> -- Sir Arthur Pinero
>
Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>wrote:
> On 8 August 2011 16:14, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > From my perspective, I don't see the one BIG list as bad, but it would be
> > VERY helpful if folks could label messages more succinctly and restrict
> > discussion to rather specific aspects.
>
> +1
>
> Not to mention useful subject lines (take a look at what the original
> subject was for the thread I took this from - I didn't edit the
> original and it is not truncated)
>
> > And, documenting what's been discussed is CRITICAL! It is madness to try
> to
> > sift through these messages to get to the "implementable" aspects.
>
> +1
>
> I really like the practice I see in some communities where someone
> will take long rambling threads and post a "[summary] foo bar" mail
> the the thread periodically. This is brilliant for those needing to
> catch up and also acts as a description of "impementable" conclusions
> and community consensus that is emerging.
>
> Ross
>
Great idea if we could find a volunteer! I tried to do this (only once) on
the "refactoring discussion" but I'll tell you some of these discussions are
SO lengthy it's impossible.
Maybe we'll do better (and some good soul will step up for the documentation
aspects) if we can adhere to some discussion standards.
Let's keep our fingers crossed.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Those who love deeply never grow old;
they may die of old age, but they die young."
-- Sir Arthur Pinero