RFC: fedora-devel-announce

[Brian Pepple]

On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 15:04 -0400, Warren Togami wrote:
> Christopher Blizzard wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 14:05 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >>
> >> *shrug* I'll give this a +1.  Although if discussion goes to
> >> 'fedora-devel' 
> >> one wonders what the usefulness of fedora-maintainers will start to
> >> be?
> >>
> > 
> > Yeah, I don't get this.  fedora-maintainers is pretty useful - high
> > signal, low crap.  The proper reaction to things like this is almost
> > never _another_ mailing list.
> > 
> 
> It is pretty useful if you have the time to follow all the posts and 
> read everything.  It is wrong-minded however to expect everyone with 
> lesser commitments to be able to read and follow everything on a busy 
> discussion list.  For them, they could opt to follow minimally 
> fedora-devel-announce.
> 
> I'm half-decided on if fedora-devel-announce then kill 
> fedora-maintainers.  fedora-maintainers has the benefit of having a 
> significantly better signal to noise ratio than fedora-devel-list. 
> There is however a detriment to the redundancy.
> 
> If folks were willing to be more MILITANT AND CONSISTENT in enforcing 
> the "devel only" rules for fedora-devel-list I might be happier about 
> killing fedora-maintainers.  But consistent enforcement has proven to be 
> impossible to maintain in the past.
> 
> We should talk about this issues in tomorrow's FESCO meeting.

I've added it to the schedule.

/B
-- 
Brian Pepple <bpepple at fedoraproject.org>

gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B  CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070606/c95fd381/attachment.sig>