[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Making -devel discussions more viable (was: switching from exim to postfix)

On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 10:44:17PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> It was implemented because at the time ubuntu-devel had a very low signal to 
> noise ratio and developers were getting frustrated (sound familiar).  My 
> opinion is that it worked pretty well.

> Most of the noise immediately shifted to ubuntu-devel-discuss and a lot of 
> developers never subscribed to it, so they were immediately helped.

> After some period of high noise, low value existence, the number of Ubuntu 
> developers that subscribed to ubuntu-devel-discuss declined further.  It was 
> pointed out to some of the more problematic contributors that if they didn't 
> knock it off and be less abusive and more productive in their list messages, 
> they were going to have no developers left to talk to.

> Eventually, the situation normalized and ubuntu-devel-discuss is a fairly low 
> volume list and most of the posts, if not particularly consistently well 
> informed, are from people that are trying to be constructive (not, of course, 
> right after controversial decisions get announced).  The two lists separated 
> are, in my opinion much higher signal to noise than the old combined ones.

I would also note that, in practice, ubuntu-devel is not so much moderated
as it is rate limited.  The non-developer posts to the list are AFAICT
universally approved so long as they aren't spam; but the moderation delays
are substantial enough that non-contributors have a chance to say their
piece while having no opportunity to be disruptive.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: