[gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 643 bytes --]

This topic has come up in the past, and I'd like to revive it once
again. The gentoo-dev list has gotten a lower and lower signal to noise
ratio over the past year or two, and it's difficult to dig out the stuff
that's truly required reading.

I propose that all need-to-know announcements and decisions be posted to
a separate, moderated (or restricted posting) gentoo-dev-announce list
to ensure that no developers lose track of what really matters.
Hopefully, this will also help to give more focus to discussions on
gentoo-dev because the goal will be to get a real decision to send to
gentoo-dev-announce.

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1062 bytes --]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:

> I propose that all need-to-know announcements and decisions be posted to
> a separate, moderated (or restricted posting) gentoo-dev-announce list
> to ensure that no developers lose track of what really matters.
> Hopefully, this will also help to give more focus to discussions on
> gentoo-dev because the goal will be to get a real decision to send to
> gentoo-dev-announce.

Outside if this being more centered around dev-only announcements, could
the current -announce list suffice? I'd hate to need to subscribe to
yet-another-announcement-list (or make our developers/users). Our
-announce list certainly has the historical presence where the most of
our user-base would see something. I guess if this isn't the case, then
I don't see a problem with the new list.

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 186 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1369 bytes --]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:30:31 -0500
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> 
> > I propose that all need-to-know announcements and decisions be
> > posted to a separate, moderated (or restricted posting)
> > gentoo-dev-announce list to ensure that no developers lose track of
> > what really matters. Hopefully, this will also help to give more
> > focus to discussions on gentoo-dev because the goal will be to get
> > a real decision to send to gentoo-dev-announce.
> 
> Outside if this being more centered around dev-only announcements,
> could the current -announce list suffice? I'd hate to need to
> subscribe to yet-another-announcement-list (or make our
> developers/users). Our -announce list certainly has the historical
> presence where the most of our user-base would see something. I guess
> if this isn't the case, then I don't see a problem with the new list.

The main problem with -announce is that noone has a clue how to get
stuff posted there, similar situation as with the frontpage.
Not really convenient if you have to bug people just to get a hint who
to bribe to get stuff posted.

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1742 bytes --]

Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:30:31 -0500
> Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>>
>>> I propose that all need-to-know announcements and decisions be
>>> posted to a separate, moderated (or restricted posting)
>>> gentoo-dev-announce list to ensure that no developers lose track of
>>> what really matters. Hopefully, this will also help to give more
>>> focus to discussions on gentoo-dev because the goal will be to get
>>> a real decision to send to gentoo-dev-announce.
>> Outside if this being more centered around dev-only announcements,
>> could the current -announce list suffice? I'd hate to need to
>> subscribe to yet-another-announcement-list (or make our
>> developers/users). Our -announce list certainly has the historical
>> presence where the most of our user-base would see something. I guess
>> if this isn't the case, then I don't see a problem with the new list.
> 
> The main problem with -announce is that noone has a clue how to get
> stuff posted there, similar situation as with the frontpage.
> Not really convenient if you have to bug people just to get a hint who
> to bribe to get stuff posted.

Those are issues that can be delt with. I wondered if this was one of
the reasons behind the idea. If we need to work out a better process,
just let us know :) I don't recall someone asking us lately about it. I
don't know all the specifics, but I know we can fix it or make it work.

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 186 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1626 bytes --]

On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 05:54 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:30:31 -0500
> Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > 
> > > I propose that all need-to-know announcements and decisions be
> > > posted to a separate, moderated (or restricted posting)
> > > gentoo-dev-announce list to ensure that no developers lose track of
> > > what really matters. Hopefully, this will also help to give more
> > > focus to discussions on gentoo-dev because the goal will be to get
> > > a real decision to send to gentoo-dev-announce.
> > 
> > Outside if this being more centered around dev-only announcements,
> > could the current -announce list suffice? I'd hate to need to
> > subscribe to yet-another-announcement-list (or make our
> > developers/users). Our -announce list certainly has the historical
> > presence where the most of our user-base would see something. I guess
> > if this isn't the case, then I don't see a problem with the new list.
> 
> The main problem with -announce is that noone has a clue how to get
> stuff posted there, similar situation as with the frontpage.
> Not really convenient if you have to bug people just to get a hint who
> to bribe to get stuff posted.

If you need something posted somewhere, bug PR.  Even if they don't have
access or don't know who needs to do what, we'll find out.  It's really
our job to know who does this stuff, and it means we'll know for the
next time someone asks.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 739 bytes --]

Lance Albertson wrote:
> Outside if this being more centered around dev-only announcements, could
> the current -announce list suffice? I'd hate to need to subscribe to
> yet-another-announcement-list (or make our developers/users). Our
> -announce list certainly has the historical presence where the most of
> our user-base would see something. I guess if this isn't the case, then
> I don't see a problem with the new list.

I agree with what you're saying about the -announce list, but this has a
different audience.

I see -announce as a list that all Gentoo _users_ must/should be
subscribed to. I wouldn't want to flood this list with announcements
that purely affect developers, thus a new list.

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Ned Ludd]

On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 20:06 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> This topic has come up in the past, and I'd like to revive it once
> again. The gentoo-dev list has gotten a lower and lower signal to noise
> ratio over the past year or two, and it's difficult to dig out the stuff
> that's truly required reading.
> 
> I propose that all need-to-know announcements and decisions be posted to
> a separate, moderated (or restricted posting) gentoo-dev-announce list
> to ensure that no developers lose track of what really matters.
> Hopefully, this will also help to give more focus to discussions on
> gentoo-dev because the goal will be to get a real decision to send to
> gentoo-dev-announce.


I would be in favor of a  gentoo-dev-announce list if it allowed me 
to unsubscribe from this list.

-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 535 bytes --]

Ned Ludd wrote:
> I would be in favor of a  gentoo-dev-announce list if it allowed me 
> to unsubscribe from this list.

Sure, if you want to just accept any decisions rather than participate
in making them. The -dev-announce list should be for finalized
decisions. It should be too late to dispute them once they're sent to it.

For important discussions, it may be worth announcing that they're
starting -- e.g., for a GLEP -- so people could then be sure to pay
attention to that discussion on -dev.

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2614 bytes --]

On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 22:38 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Ned Ludd wrote:
> > I would be in favor of a  gentoo-dev-announce list if it allowed me 
> > to unsubscribe from this list.
> 
> Sure, if you want to just accept any decisions rather than participate
> in making them. The -dev-announce list should be for finalized
> decisions. It should be too late to dispute them once they're sent to it.
> 
> For important discussions, it may be worth announcing that they're
> starting -- e.g., for a GLEP -- so people could then be sure to pay
> attention to that discussion on -dev.

At one point, a long time ago, a few of us had actually started
discussing a mailing list reorganization.  It somewhat died out simply
because we didn't keep up with it.  However, it went something like
this:

- Create a new list ("gentoo-core-announce" ?)
Reading: dev-only
Posting: dev-only, reply-to set to gentoo-core
This is the reference list of things (policy, decisions and discussions
in progress) all developers must know about.

- Keep -core and -dev, as non-required reading

- Confirm the role of "gentoo-announce" as the official reference list
of things all users must know about (especially difficult upgrades just
before they reach stable). Posting is moderated.



Now, do we really need it to be -core-announce?  Not really.  In fact,
at one point we'd come up with both a -core-announce and a
-dev-announce, with -core-announce being for more sensitive information.
Some other ideas that were tossed about was changing "gentoo-announce"
into "gentoo-security-announce" (since it is currently GLSA-only,
really) with reply-to set to gentoo-security and create a
"gentoo-user-announce" with reply-to set to gentoo-user, where we would
put more information, such as the information that would be given via
the portage tree in GLEP42.  However, it was also brought up that anyone
interested in security is probably also interested in things that might
break their system (heh) so instead of splitting it to two lists, it
would remain a single list.

As you can guess, we never got around to actually writing up a GLEP for
this or anything.  We didn't reach any kind of impasse, we just quit
working on it.

I just thought I would pass this along so people know what was discussed
previously and would also like to apologize for being one of the
slackers who let this die a while back without so much as sending it to
the list for discussion.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 952 bytes --]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> - Create a new list ("gentoo-core-announce" ?)
> Reading: dev-only
> Posting: dev-only, reply-to set to gentoo-core
> This is the reference list of things (policy, decisions and discussions
> in progress) all developers must know about.

Agree with -(core|dev)-announce.

> - Keep -core and -dev, as non-required reading

Agree, but with the caveat that devs must still be at least subscribed
to -core even if they choose not to read it. This way, you could have a
-dev-announce that also refers to something private on -core if need be.

> Now, do we really need it to be -core-announce?  Not really.  In fact,
> at one point we'd come up with both a -core-announce and a
> -dev-announce, with -core-announce being for more sensitive information.

I'm having a tough time thinking of sensitive information that all devs
must know about (i.e., that would qualify for -core-announce).

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1165 bytes --]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:

> Agree, but with the caveat that devs must still be at least subscribed
> to -core even if they choose not to read it. This way, you could have a
> -dev-announce that also refers to something private on -core if need be.
> 
>> Now, do we really need it to be -core-announce?  Not really.  In fact,
>> at one point we'd come up with both a -core-announce and a
>> -dev-announce, with -core-announce being for more sensitive information.
> 
> I'm having a tough time thinking of sensitive information that all devs
> must know about (i.e., that would qualify for -core-announce).

I'd rather not create a -core-announce. The amount of times those types
of things come up on the list are rare. It would be easier to have an
standard subject heading (maybe ANNOUNCEMENT:) that people can use in
their filters. If devs start abusing it, then we'll vote them off the
island :)

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 186 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Simon Stelling]

Lance Albertson wrote:
> I'd rather not create a -core-announce. The amount of times those types
> of things come up on the list are rare. It would be easier to have an
> standard subject heading (maybe ANNOUNCEMENT:) that people can use in
> their filters. If devs start abusing it, then we'll vote them off the
> island :)

Bad idea, IMHO. That people are unable to change the subject line even when
we're no longer discussing an upcoming project but choice of pet doesn't have to
be proved again. Please, create a seperate announcement list, it would make
things helluvalot nicer.

-- 
Kind Regards,

Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Developer
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Ned Ludd]

On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 17:36 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> 
> > Agree, but with the caveat that devs must still be at least subscribed
> > to -core even if they choose not to read it. This way, you could have a
> > -dev-announce that also refers to something private on -core if need be.
> > 
> >> Now, do we really need it to be -core-announce?  Not really.  In fact,
> >> at one point we'd come up with both a -core-announce and a
> >> -dev-announce, with -core-announce being for more sensitive information.
> > 
> > I'm having a tough time thinking of sensitive information that all devs
> > must know about (i.e., that would qualify for -core-announce).
> 


> I'd rather not create a -core-announce. The amount of times those types
> of things come up on the list are rare. It would be easier to have an
> standard subject heading (maybe ANNOUNCEMENT:) that people can use in
> their filters. If devs start abusing it, then we'll vote them off the
> island :)

Simple, Effective.. I like it..

-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1253 bytes --]

On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 13:10 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > - Create a new list ("gentoo-core-announce" ?)
> > Reading: dev-only
> > Posting: dev-only, reply-to set to gentoo-core
> > This is the reference list of things (policy, decisions and discussions
> > in progress) all developers must know about.
> 
> Agree with -(core|dev)-announce.
> 
> > - Keep -core and -dev, as non-required reading
> 
> Agree, but with the caveat that devs must still be at least subscribed
> to -core even if they choose not to read it. This way, you could have a
> -dev-announce that also refers to something private on -core if need be.
> 
> > Now, do we really need it to be -core-announce?  Not really.  In fact,
> > at one point we'd come up with both a -core-announce and a
> > -dev-announce, with -core-announce being for more sensitive information.
> 
> I'm having a tough time thinking of sensitive information that all devs
> must know about (i.e., that would qualify for -core-announce).

Same here, which was why we eventually dropped to only a single announce
list in our discussions.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 857 bytes --]

Lars Weiler wrote:
> * Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@gentoo.org> [06/06/24 20:06 -0700]:
>> I propose that all need-to-know announcements and decisions be posted to
>> a separate, moderated (or restricted posting) gentoo-dev-announce list
>> to ensure that no developers lose track of what really matters.
> 
> I like the summaries in the GWN.  Probably more people can
> help out to create that summary.

OK, that would be a useful collaboration to build so that we could
basically get development announcements cross-posted to both locations.
The GWN often covers in-progress discussions rather than their
aftermath, while the -dev-announce list would be purely aftermath. Also
the -dev-announce list could post announcements immediately following a
decision rather than waiting up to a week for the next GWN to come out.

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Stuart Herbert]

On 6/25/06, Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@gentoo.org> wrote:
> This topic has come up in the past, and I'd like to revive it once
> again. The gentoo-dev list has gotten a lower and lower signal to noise
> ratio over the past year or two, and it's difficult to dig out the stuff
> that's truly required reading.

What's noise to you is signal to others.  For example, my interest is
servers, so all of your X.org posts are mostly noise to me, but to
others it's essential signal.  Same goes for the scientific re-org
recently discussed.  And I'm sure the same goes for PHP & webapp
stuff.

> I propose that all need-to-know announcements and decisions be posted to
> a separate, moderated (or restricted posting) gentoo-dev-announce list
> to ensure that no developers lose track of what really matters.

I think a -dev-announce ML is a good idea, with reply-to set to -dev.
But I also think you're over-exaggerating the situation by a long way,
sorry.

Best regards,
Stu
--
PS: If anyone needs anything posting on -announce, I'm one of the
people you can bribe :)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Enrico Weigelt]

* Stuart Herbert <stuart.herbert@gmail.com> schrieb:
> On 6/25/06, Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >This topic has come up in the past, and I'd like to revive it once
> >again. The gentoo-dev list has gotten a lower and lower signal to noise
> >ratio over the past year or two, and it's difficult to dig out the stuff
> >that's truly required reading.
> 
> What's noise to you is signal to others.  For example, my interest is
> servers, so all of your X.org posts are mostly noise to me, but to
> others it's essential signal.  Same goes for the scientific re-org
> recently discussed.  And I'm sure the same goes for PHP & webapp
> stuff.

ACK. So it seems more worth, splitting off several larger topics,
ie. X.org development to separate lists, or even better discuss 
things that are not really gentoo specific (ie. bug-fixing within 
the package) on the upstream's list(s).

(At this point, I'd like to remind you on my distro independent
QM project ...)

> >I propose that all need-to-know announcements and decisions be posted to
> >a separate, moderated (or restricted posting) gentoo-dev-announce list
> >to ensure that no developers lose track of what really matters.
> 
> I think a -dev-announce ML is a good idea, with reply-to set to -dev.

ACK. Such an list could be useful.

*BUT*: it doesn't make any sense just talking about it. Simply do it
or forget it. Only talking is nonsense.
If I was admin @gentoo.org, I would have set it up even before writing
this mail.


cu
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service

  phone:     +49 36207 519931         www:       http://www.metux.de/
  fax:       +49 36207 519932         email:     contact@metux.de
  cellphone: +49 174 7066481
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 -- DSL ab 0 Euro. -- statische IP -- UUCP -- Hosting -- Webshops --
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Stuart Herbert]

On 6/27/06, Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@metux.de> wrote:
> (At this point, I'd like to remind you on my distro independent
> QM project ...)

Never heard of it, sorry.

> *BUT*: it doesn't make any sense just talking about it. Simply do it
> or forget it. Only talking is nonsense.
> If I was admin @gentoo.org, I would have set it up even before writing
> this mail.

That's not the way we like to do things, when they affect all of our
developers.  We prefer to sound out opinion first before acting.

Best regards,
Stu
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Simon Stelling]

Stuart Herbert wrote:
> But I also think you're over-exaggerating the situation by a long way,
> sorry.

I don't think so. As I understand it, it's not the amount of threads that makes
the noise, it's mainly all the sub-sub-sub-sub-threads.

-- 
Kind Regards,

Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Developer
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Stuart Herbert]

On 6/27/06, Simon Stelling <blubb@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I don't think so. As I understand it, it's not the amount of threads that makes
> the noise, it's mainly all the sub-sub-sub-sub-threads.

As long as they're about Gentoo, they're not 'noise' to everyone.  I
confess I don't read every email on -dev, but I haven't seen all that
many emails that are completely off-topic.

Best regards,
Stu
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1611 bytes --]

Stuart Herbert wrote:
> On 6/25/06, Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> This topic has come up in the past, and I'd like to revive it once
>> again. The gentoo-dev list has gotten a lower and lower signal to noise
>> ratio over the past year or two, and it's difficult to dig out the stuff
>> that's truly required reading.
> 
> What's noise to you is signal to others.  For example, my interest is
> servers, so all of your X.org posts are mostly noise to me, but to
> others it's essential signal.  Same goes for the scientific re-org
> recently discussed.  And I'm sure the same goes for PHP & webapp
> stuff.

Exactly. More stuff you don't care about is more noise. I agree with
that too. Rather than reading 50 posts about X crap, wouldn't you rather
just look at a single announcement?

>> I propose that all need-to-know announcements and decisions be posted to
>> a separate, moderated (or restricted posting) gentoo-dev-announce list
>> to ensure that no developers lose track of what really matters.
> 
> I think a -dev-announce ML is a good idea, with reply-to set to -dev.
> But I also think you're over-exaggerating the situation by a long way,
> sorry.

I'm glad you have your opinion. I don't have the time to sit and browse
through all the arguments between 2-3 people that go on for 50-100 posts
or more as they fall more and more off-topic, so I would like to know if
there's any conclusion without wasting my time on that.

My options are either missing important announcements or creating this
list. I would prefer the list.

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-dev-announce list

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 496 bytes --]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:

> My options are either missing important announcements or creating this
> list. I would prefer the list.

What important announcements are you expecting to find at the bottom 50-100
posts of random relevance?  The announcements are at the top, being the thing
that triggered the discussion. :P

Any conclusions that are accidentally stumbled over during this process are (at
least they should be) posted as a new thread, so the fun can begin again.

--de.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-dev-announce list

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 640 bytes --]

Ryan Hill wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> 
>> My options are either missing important announcements or creating this
>> list. I would prefer the list.
> 
> What important announcements are you expecting to find at the bottom 50-100
> posts of random relevance?  The announcements are at the top, being the thing
> that triggered the discussion. :P

Usually that is not the case, because most people don't just go and do
stuff that should be discussedwithout mentioning it beforehand. The
proposal or idea is at the top. It's then discussed, and a decision is
made somewhere in the depths of the thread.

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]