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

Re: Summary of the debian-devel BoF at Debconf9

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 5:41 AM, Michael Banck<mbanck@debian.org> wrote:

> at Debconf9, there was a BoF about the debian-devel list and how we
> could possibly make it more attractive.

Was this recorded (I can't find it in the initial video release)?

>  * Reconsider CCs
> Regarding CCs, it was hightlighted that the current list conduct
> explicitely says (since a short while ago) people should refrain from
> complaining about CCs on-list and do this privately.  Further discussion
> made clear that most of the people present might consider getting CCed a
> small nuisance, but consider discussions about this much more
> disrupting.  Furthermore, some people actually like being CCed on
> things, though maybe more to attract their attention to threads they
> would otherwise not read (and not as direct replies to them).

I've noticed the on-list whining about CCs has dropped off
dramatically since the policy was changed. However, I still get CCed
fairly often.

>  * Maybe split off WNPP Traffic to a new -wnpp list?
> The other discussed item was about ITPs.  It turned out that roughly 20%
> of the debian-devel list traffic are ITPs and discussions thereof.
> While it is clear that ITPs should get reviewed, maybe not all of them
> have to be copied to -devel.  It was suggested that for mass-filings
> (sometimes people file the ITP for a dozen perl libraries needed as
> Build-Depends/Depends for a package in one go), something less-intrusive
> could be used, maybe perhaps a summary posting.  Another option is that
> specific teams like the perl or the games teams review ITPs in their
> field, while only generic ITPs get copied to -devel.

The list already exists, but it recieves all traffic from all wnpp
bugs and is therefore rather high-traffic:


So if ITP/O/RFA are to be split out, a new list might need to be
created. I also wonder how they are to be split out, IIRC currently
the only reason they are sent there is because of reportbug setting
X-Debbugs-CC on ITP mails. I guess reportbug could cease that practice
for ITP bugs, I do wonder how many folks add it manually due to
established convention though. Agreed about the mass-filings.

Personally I find ITP mails on debian-devel useful.



Reply to: