llvm dev - Jul 2016 - Suggestion to Stop Cross Posting Discussions

For ISO C++ we long ago created an 'all' list for topics that were
organisational and not technically specific to an aspect of the Standard such as
Library, or Core, or Extensions, etc..  For the most part I think that since the
early 1990s when these lists started, the 'all'
reflector/distribution-list has worked really well.  I still get all the ISO C++
mailings, and the signal to noise ratio is pretty good in this regard.

For topics such as GIT versus SVN hosting, or code of conduct, and such like
(even social events!); the use of a separate list is well justified and means
that we can automatically filter and manage our emails in a more useful way.

Hal's 'community' suggestion is essentially the same thing as the
ISO C++ 'all' list, and it has worked really well over the years and
I'd definitely favour that approach.

	MartinO

-----Original Message-----
From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Hal
Finkel via llvm-dev
Sent: 05 July 2016 20:00
To: John Criswell <jtcriswel at gmail.com>
Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Suggestion to Stop Cross Posting Discussions

----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Criswell via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2016 1:51:27 PM
> Subject: [llvm-dev] Suggestion to Stop Cross Posting Discussions
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Within the past few months, there have been several discussions that 
> relate to LLVM and its sub-projects (such as the discussions on moving 
> to Git and the Code of Conduct).  To ensure that these discussions 
> reach all community members, people have been cross-posting these 
> messages to llvmdev, cfe-dev, and every other -dev you can think of.
> 
> This is becoming a headache for me (and possibly other mailing list
> admins) because replies are often sent to every list, but not all 
> users are subscribed to every list.  As a result, we're moderating 
> messages for people because they're subscribed to llvm-dev but not 
> openmp-dev, or they are on cfe-dev but not llvm-dev, etc.
> 
> Can we keep these policy discussions on llvm-dev and just expect 
> people to subscribe to llvm-dev if they want to particpate? 
> Alternatively, could we create a new mailing list for these 
> discussions?
> 
> I'd rather spend time moderating first-poster posts and discarding 
> SPAM than ensuring that all of you can post to all the lists.
Perhaps this is the easiest solution: Make it so that anyone subscribed to any
of the -dev lists can post to all of them.

Alternatively, we could have a "community" list to which anyone
subscribed to any of the -dev lists is automatically subscribed.

We have a lot of people who are subscribed, for example, to cfe-dev and not to
llvm-dev, and I'm not sure that making them received backend-related
messages just to catch community-wide discussions is reasonable.

 -Hal
> 
> Regards,
> 
> John Criswell
> 
> --
> John Criswell
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester 
> http://www.cs.rochester.edu/u/criswell
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> 
--
Hal Finkel
Assistant Computational Scientist
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> For ISO C++ we long ago created an 'all' list for topics that were
> organisational and not technically specific to an aspect of the Standard
> such as Library, or Core, or Extensions, etc..  For the most part I think
> that since the early 1990s when these lists started, the 'all'
> reflector/distribution-list has worked really well.  I still get all the
> ISO C++ mailings, and the signal to noise ratio is pretty good in this
> regard.
>
> For topics such as GIT versus SVN hosting, or code of conduct, and such
> like (even social events!); the use of a separate list is well justified
> and means that we can automatically filter and manage our emails in a more
> useful way.
>
> Hal's 'community' suggestion is essentially the same thing as
the ISO C++
> 'all' list, and it has worked really well over the years and
I'd definitely
> favour that approach.
>
+11111

I'm tired of all the stupid/bikeshed OT non-developer discussions that
happen on what imnsho should be a *development ONLY* list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160706/c6df7b88/attachment.html>

> On Jul 5, 2016, at 4:23 PM, C Bergström via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
wrote:
> For ISO C++ we long ago created an 'all' list for topics that were
organisational and not technically specific to an aspect of the Standard such as
Library, or Core, or Extensions, etc..  For the most part I think that since the
early 1990s when these lists started, the 'all'
reflector/distribution-list has worked really well.  I still get all the ISO C++
mailings, and the signal to noise ratio is pretty good in this regard.
> 
> For topics such as GIT versus SVN hosting, or code of conduct, and such
like (even social events!); the use of a separate list is well justified and
means that we can automatically filter and manage our emails in a more useful
way.
> 
> Hal's 'community' suggestion is essentially the same thing as
the ISO C++ 'all' list, and it has worked really well over the years and
I'd definitely favour that approach.
> 
> +11111
> 
> I'm tired of all the stupid/bikeshed OT non-developer discussions that
happen on what imnsho should be a *development ONLY* list.
I don't have a good suggestion to avoid the bikeshed discussion, but it is
not off topic: git/svn is used by every active llvm developer on a day to day
basis!

- Matthias

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160705/4c4e12cb/attachment.html>

> On Jul 5, 2016, at 3:05 PM, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> For ISO C++ we long ago created an 'all' list for topics that were
organisational and not technically specific to an aspect of the Standard such as
Library, or Core, or Extensions, etc..  For the most part I think that since the
early 1990s when these lists started, the 'all'
reflector/distribution-list has worked really well.  I still get all the ISO C++
mailings, and the signal to noise ratio is pretty good in this regard.
+1 for an “llvm-project” list that everyone involved in any llvm subproject is
encouraged to sign up for.

-Chris

On 6 Jul 2016, at 05:32, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jul 5, 2016, at 3:05 PM, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> 
>> For ISO C++ we long ago created an 'all' list for topics that
were organisational and not technically specific to an aspect of the Standard
such as Library, or Core, or Extensions, etc..  For the most part I think that
since the early 1990s when these lists started, the 'all'
reflector/distribution-list has worked really well.  I still get all the ISO C++
mailings, and the signal to noise ratio is pretty good in this regard.
> 
> +1 for an “llvm-project” list that everyone involved in any llvm subproject
is encouraged to sign up for.
Another +1 from me.  The llvm-dev and cfe-dev lists are both firehoses and a lot
of people on the periphery of the community don’t subscribe to them for this
reason (which is not a negative, it’s a sign of a healthy and active project). 
A lower-traffic list for everyone in the community would be very useful.

David

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3719 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160706/d8224649/attachment-0001.bin>