[Development] ML for QtWebEngine

[Pierre Rossi]

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Matt Broadstone <mbroadst at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Zeno Albisser <Zeno.Albisser at digia.com>wrote:
>
>> Once again from the correct address.
>>
>> On Oct 15, 2013, at 5:06 PM, Matt Broadstone <mbroadst at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Not that I am really interested in debating such a decision, but I'm not
>> quite sure I see the noise you guys are referring to. I've been signed up
>> to the webkit-qt ML for some time and it's basically just a spam service
>> for status meeting bot messages (which at this point conveys very little
>> information). Is there a secret place where a bunch of emails regarding qt
>> webkit and webegine are ending up? Barring the existence of that, why not
>> just keep the discussions on this list and keep the whole community
>> involved until such a day arises that it really does become too much to
>> handle here? I, for one, support a path forward where I don't have to sign
>> up for another ML, and make yet another filter for my inbox ;)
>>
>>>
>>>
>> You might understand, that many people feel quite reluctant to send an
>> email to a list that goes to hundreds of people instead of the relatively
>> small amount of people that actually has a real interest in the project.
>> The threshold for asking a question or sharing some feedback is higher.
>>
>
> Sure, but that's just how open source works, right? I think we foster a
> pretty good vibe on these MLs, people shouldn't be afraid to ask here.
>
>
>>  So instead of sending a mail, a lot of these discussions are currently
>> just happening in our irc channel where people cannot easily read up on a
>> discussion at all. - I don't think that's something you would be arguing
>> for in favor.
>>
> You used to be in #qtwebengine yourself as well some time ago. That is the
>> "secret place" where the information is currently going.
>>
>
>  I don't think people are asking questions on irc because they are afraid
> of the big bad qt mailing list, I think it's because they can get your
> attention more immediately and discuss issues in real time.
>
>
And the best way to get a good answer is probably to go ask on the
appropriate channel ;)


>  Also, if you consider the current webkit-qt ML spam, then you would
>> probably not want that on the dev ML either.
>>
>>
> Well yes, if what you are proposing is that you are going to have a weekly
> status bot then certainly I don't think that belongs on this list. I
> consider the webkit-qt ML spam because it isn't actually being used at all
> (maybe realistically <= 10 emails a month from an actual user, not the
> status bot, and that's generous). What I'm really getting at is that I
> think we're kidding ourselves if we think that a webkit binding in whatever
> incarnation isn't a core offering of Qt, and that such discussions (until
> it actually does overwhelm the list) should remain as accessible as
> possible.
>
>  But it does not make sense to reason about traffic on qtwebkit. These
>> are separate projects and we do obviously not discuss qtwebengine on the
>> qtwebkit mailing list. Because there you would not expect it for sure.
>>
>> - Zeno
>>
>>
> Matt
>

Personally I feel it's more a matter of categorization rather than big
secrets. I'm more afraid I might miss some important emails because they're
lost in a big backlog of noise.
How hard can it be to set up yet another mailing list should be the real
question. Given that anyone can subscribe easily [1], I don't think it's
radically different from having a variety of IRC channels to discuss
different topics.
That being said, I am not that emotionally attached to communicating by
email, and definitely not interested in arguing forever to get a list right
now so if this is going to be controversial, I'm sure we can do without one
for the time being.

[1] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo

Cheers,
--
Pierre
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20131015/91fd87ba/attachment.html>