"people wanted to be independent of red hat" ???

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 07.06.2007 21:13, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 07:07:18PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 07.06.2007 18:55, Mike McGrath wrote:
>>>>>   We have 
>>>>> a current working solution in place right now for this.
>>>> You mean the mailman that runs this list? Or for a
>>>> lists.fedoraproject.org? I'm fine with doing the reorganization on this
>>>> server, but back months ago a lot of people wanted a dedicated server.
>>> Nope, I mean where its hosted now.
>> As I said: I'm fine with continuing to use it. But back earlier this year
>> 1. -- people wanted to get a subdomain with a "list" prefix
> Who are these people? Maybe they should speak up if this is such an
> issue?

They spoke. It's should be in the archives (December or January iirc) of
fedora-devel somewhere; on fab also.

The situation in short as far as I remember it: I asked people if they
wanted a list prefix or not. There were people for both camps. Then
someone said: having a "list" in the domainname (such as
lists.fedora-project.org or lists.gnome.org) makes it obvious that you
are writing to a list. Back then that was afaics the solution most
people preferred.

> [...]
>> 3. -- people wanted to be independent of red hat
> So let's cancel Red Hat's sponsoring and find a new role for Max, Mike
> and all other Fedora dedicated @redhat.com folks. We should also find
> new sponsoring for Red Hat's donated hardware and bandwidth
> resources. ;)
> [...]

It was not my opinion, I just laid down the  opinions that I heard back
then.

> Let's invest resources into smoothing our tools and getting into the
> next phase of the improved merged buildsystem, aka scm
> business. Wasting resources in hardware and man power just to fix a
> domain suffix seems wrong at this point in time.

In a project as large as Fedora different people work on different areas
and have different interests. The Boards noticed that the mailing lists
could needs some adjustments. They asked me to do that and I said "yes".
If you don't like that contact the board.

> I think Warren's "let's just create the new needed lists" attitude is
> far better suited.

I agree in this case, as I was one of the drivers for such a list back
when I was FESCo chair.  But as I said, some people in important
positions blocked it back then so we never started to use it.

I really like that we get the list now.

But a general "let's just create the new needed lists" attitude just
leads to chaos.

CU
thl