[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [RFC] mailing list host

From: Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:29:38 -0600

On Nov 10, 2009, at 10:12 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
> <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> On Nov 10, 2009, at 10:01 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:56 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
>>>> Mark Phippard wrote:
>>>>> I am against closing the users@ list on tigris after we
>>>>> move. I think we should probably have a users list at Apache if other
>>>>> projects do, but I do not think we should try to force anyone to
>>>>> migrate from the current list.
>>>> This makes sense in terms of minimal disruption, but I think if/when we pop
>>>> up a users list at Apache, we'll want to stop pointing folks to the s.t.o
>>>> list. How (if at all) would your opinion change if we put forwarding rules
>>>> in place that caused mails from users_at_s.t.o to go instead to users_at_s.a.o
>>>> (and likewise for dev@), assuming we can pull that off as a
>>>> hotfix/instance-set to Tigris?
>>> I would be against that. I am totally in favor of advertising and
>>> promoting the new lists (including on the tigris lists themselves),
>>> but we ought to let the users move to the new lists (or not)
>>> organically. If we start encouraging cross-posting or we try to do it
>>> behind the scenes I do not see how that is not going to create
>>> unexpected problems.
>> What about running the two lists in parallel for a couple of weeks, and adding a notice to the
>> footer indicating that users_at_s.t.o will disappear on a given day? I don't like the long-term idea
>> of having to subscribe and monitor Yet Another List, but doing so in the short term to get people
>> to migrate sounds reasonable.
> I do not think we should ever shut it down[*]. There are Subversion
> lists and forums outside of tigris too and I assume you do not monitor
> those. I'd suggest spending a few weeks suggesting people migrate to
> the Apache list and see if the traffic moves organically. Eventually,
> you could "announce" that you are no longer monitoring the list, as
> could the other developers. If the users want to post to a list that
> is monitored by the devs, they will move to the Apache list. But I do
> not see any reason to force them to move.

My main concern is fracturing of the user community. Per Metcalfe's Law, having multiple lists with the same charter strongly decreases the value of each of those lists, for reasons which should be obvious. Encouraging this behavior is antithetical to promoting a vibrant user community.

I'm not going to run out and tell all the other Subversion forums out there to such down. They exist because they fill a niche which wasn't addressed by users_at_s.t.o. I *am* concerned about a list which we do have direct control over, which has been linked to time-and-again in various archives and web pages over the past nine-years, and which will soon[1] be obsoleted by a list of duplicate charter. We should make every effort to direct people to the new list, and that includes turning the old one off.

> [*] - If it gets to the point that traffic on tigris list is
> approaching almost no messages per day, then I'd be OK with making it
> read-only.

I've no problem with keeping the existing archive at s.t.o. It would make existing links (which weren't broken by the change a year ago) still work.


[1] Assuming we chose the migrate the lists to s.a.o.

Received on 2009-11-10 17:29:50 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.