Lars, I hope you don't mind an off-list reply, but since this works a bit like a personal explanation from my previous words on the list, it seemed nicer this way. 1) My position about the Foundation: I'm against. While it made a certain sense in the Novell days, even if it was a matter of identity, in current days in a SUSE Linux context, creating a Foundation doesn't bring any value to openSUSE or SUSE; I believe it will be bad for both parties, it defeats the purpose of 'union' in while I believe. 2) My position regarding openSUSE: Lots of cool people, lots of potential, poor governance, lack of identity. This is how I see openSUSE, other might have different views, this is mine. openSUSE should be one of the main flagships under the SUSE Linux umbrella, which turns 1) into a True. 3) My position regarding Evergreen: no one really know what it is, else there would be no real reason for the thread which originated this reply. Tumbleweed is the most visible 'brand' of openSUSE outside our circle. I would like to see Evergreen achieving the same, and hopefully fill the gap that there's demand: a 'personal server' capable release that could last for 3/5 years would be cool for a 'community thing'. Since I believe that there is demand for Evergreen, since it could have some usage for me... I think it's worth supporting it in the way that the people which actually commit to it want... if that's a mailing list... it's a cheap price :) 4) The mailing list issue: If more synergies around Evergreen depend only on a mailing list? Sure... let it be the 101th mailing list, I couldn't care less. About Samba mailing lists... if that helps developers who are actually working for it... why not? If they are against and want to supress them... sure, since they are putting the work, let them organize as they want... Same for evergreen or any other project. The "software police" thingie should be applied higher in the chain, not on the basic projects where people "cut stone" :) I do respect a lot (and value) people with different opinions, and because I believe there was maybe some misunderstanding on the list thread, I feel this email is somehow more explicit and un-complicated. Kindest, NM 2012/2/12 Lars Müller <lmuelle@suse.de>:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 06:58:36PM +0000, Nelson Marques wrote: [ 8< ]
This is no question of first and second class. More than 80 lists isn't good to a project. Check how many of these lists had close to no traffic in the last three months or half year, Then you might get the direction of my suggestion.
I do agree with you that 80 lists might be not so good for a project, but this lists should be analysed on a "per se" basis, and I find it also not good that a project that acts under the umbrella brand doesn't have a dedicated mailing list because there are already too much lists (in which many shouldn't even exist).
In other words, your stance bring more harm than good to Evergreen because others earlier might have taken the wrong decision regarding to lists. Furthermore... not all need to be signed in all lists, but the special requirements of Evergreen can easilly justify having it's own list... and not having it might reduce the hability that people have to re-structure and organize the project...
In other words, if you are not part of the solution, you are becoming a part of the problem.
Sorry, I'm not able to see how my suggestion to keep the openSUSE traffic as long as a particular topic doesn't harm on the main list causes potential trouble.
But this might be a language issue. Or simply a question of logic. To Wolfgang who's driving evergreen this all had been less an issue.
And to me this is neither. Cause either if a new list is created someone lese might pass what ever Samba version from the network:samba name space of the Open Build Servive to evergreen or even not.
Or check a project like Samba. How are we able to handle it with only two lists since so many years?
not my fight.
What are you trying to express with this sentence? That you don't care about the argument?
I've given an example how a huge project is able to work with two lists. openSUSE has already more than 80. Do you see the contrast? That was my goal. Independent if you use or don't use Samba. This is a generic argument.
And to my negative surprise I've seen we now have a dedicated opensuse-arm list too. This is anything else than good to the project I fear. Cause more and more lists cause more fragmentation of the communication.
Denying a list to a project that clearly can take advantage of it is neither good, despite if you like it or not.
I don't like the idea and argue against it. I'm not in the role to deny anything what's happening with openSUSE. That's what I even tried to express with my previous answer.
Sometimes it's quite usefull to read mails you reply to. ;) Or to ask back if something wasn't clear enough.
Please count the lists openSUSE already is offering at lists.openSUSE.org They had been more than 80 last time I counted them.
Between a project that wants to earn it's own lifestream and vitallity and a few defunct lists that are on that webpage, I'm not really sure if you are acting to protect or to harm openSUSE with such claims.
It is to protect and to focus. Look, I'm not going to subscribe to any additional openSUSE list. I'm already on to many.
Good point... So how are people who want to do things for Evergreen are going to focus? On a Factory mailing list? on a project mailing list?
Please show us your solutions on how to coordinate or run a project without a simple thing like a mailing list... that's something I bet most of us would be delighted to ear, instead of the traditional "I dont like this".
We have opensuse@opensuse.org as written in my initial reply. This existing list we can use for the evergreen purpose too. And as soon as evergreen causes to much noise comapred to all the other topics then it's time to requests a dedicated list. That's the generic way how mailing lists of projects are organized.
A fresh list isn't created on request. There must the a proofen need.
Well, even for this topic the basic mailing list rules apply. Why should there be any difference?
Thanks for showing us a bit more on how openSUSE is run by SUSE :)
My opinion has close to nothing to do with the opinion of SUSE. This is my personal view and in this particular case also written in my private time.
My personal stance is that it's far more easier to achieve the goal of Evergreen by forking SLE like CentOS did with Red Hat than go through all of this crap that leads no where... It's becoming far easier to work off project than within project.
a) You reply here competly out of context. Read what I've written before and see your reply.
b) Crap? This is the normal process you have to pass if you're part of an Open Source project. Your writing about evergreen, SLE, CentOS, and RedHat has nothing to do with the generic mechanisms we discussed.
Apples should kept separate from pears.
Cheers,
Lars -- Lars Müller [ˈlaː(r)z ˈmʏlɐ] Samba Team SUSE Linux, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
-- Nelson Marques /* http://www.marques.so nmo.marques@gmail.com */ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org