incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] NL Mailing Lists (was RE: [PROPOSAL] Set up of ooo-dev-ja at incubator.apache.org)
Date Fri, 09 Sep 2011 17:42:43 GMT
Thanks Dennis!

I agree that we rushed into creating mailing lists to replace OOo lists without a co-ordinated
set of changes to the existing OOo site so that people will be pointed to the new lists.

We tried, but did not take the time to discuss and refine the message that was written to
the users. There were no 72 hour waits (or if there were it was not clear) - there was chaos
on ooo-dev about Forums that obscured any discussion of MLs.

Not to single anyone out, but I was surprised at the tone of the discussion around the announcements
in users@ooo. It was not the place to echo discussions already on ooo-dev. That discussions
about GMANE mangling even occurred there was a sign of not enough discussion prior to making
the announcement. That should have been settled first. What aggregators we register MLs with
needs to be part of the podling's policy.

We are in the incubator - chicken, egg, better egg, better chicken, best egg, best chicken
:-)

But with users, you don't really get do overs. I think we need to be careful experimenting
with users. We need to address the "dev" / "users" division for each NL!

+1 on forming a plan, policies and then executing. Thanks again Dennis.

Regards,
Dave

On Sep 9, 2011, at 10:25 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> Comments in-line
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org] 
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 09:59
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] NL Mailing Lists (was RE: [PROPOSAL] Set up of ooo-dev-ja at incubator.apache.org)
> 
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
>> I am changing the topic of this branch of the discussion.
>> 
>> I am worried about some problems with mailing lists and migration of OpenOffice.org.
 If the problems are allowed, it should be on purpose.
>> 
>> I suggest discussing those problems before the situation is made worse.  I will move
this topic to the OOOUSER wiki on the weekend.
>> 
>> PERSONAL CONCERN:
>> 
>> 1. The current list arrangement is technically superior to what is proposed for replacement.
>> 
> 
> Could be be more specific about what you think is technically superior
> about the existing approach?  And by that I assume you mean the 332
> existing OOo mailing lists?
> 
> <orcmid> 
> I will do that on the wiki page where this kind of enumeration can be laid out and revised
better.  I already suggest culling, below, but starting there, not by a forced-fit here.
> </orcmid>
> 
>> 2. Shutting down the resources of a community and expecting that community to migrate
itself onto an alternative will deteriorate if not completely lose the participation of that
community.
>> 
> 
> Is this really true?  Have you looked at recent traffic on
> ooo-dev@i.a.o versus dev@oo.o, for example?
> <orcmid>Yes, I have been looking at the content too.  That concerns me more.</orcmid>
> 
> And was your dire prediction true of LibreOffice?  I don't think so.
> 
> <orcmid>
> I don't think the situation is comparable. I also note that LibreOffice has a small number
of mailing lists and I believe there are only mailing lists.  A lot of work is done on IRC,
at least among developers.
> </orcmid>
> 
> Certainly there is a tipping point, when a critical mass of
> participants move over from one list to another.  That takes time.
> This is encouraged by giving a consistent message about the migration,
> something we've failed to do so far.  For example, even after we
> agreed to create ooo-users, I see you talking about this, on that list
> and elsewhere, as a mistake.  That is not helping.
> 
> <orcmid>No comment</orcmid>






> 
> -Rob
> 
> [ ... ]
> 


Mime
View raw message