On 04/08/2015 07:44 PM, Joerg Reisenweber wrote:
>
> We got #debianfork and #devuan IRC channels for pretty much the same reasons,
> and it seems it sort of works there. So for ML that would be the natural
> template to follow.
>
*** Except the move from IRC to email matches in nature the move from
fish to mammals. Two completely different worlds. On IRC it makes
sense to use as many channels as you like, because you're just an Alt-A
away from any of them. We have #debianfork for, well, general chat. We
have #devuan, which was originally a split for developers, but became a
tad more chatty than anticipated. And then we have #devuan-dev where
bots spit commits like it's raining bits, so people there hardly chat.
I really don't believe there's a natural template to follow there,
besides NOT alienating users and devs.

What I'm looking forward to is having a single "Devuan community
channel" that people can use via email or Web seamlessly, and where
specific groups can form and have focused discussions while other people
will chat away their lives for their own and others' enjoyment. But at
any moment, someone can send a heads up and have all eyeballs watching
that group fading away and call them back to the center of everyone's
attention. This won't happen with split lists.

This already happens on the gitlab where issues can be used as focused
back and forth communication media to get things done. I hope the forum
can satisfy the needs of a larger community who won't necessarily adopt
a pragmatic and utilitarian approach of "tracking issues". All things
being equal, I'd rather stick to the minimalist mailing list approach:
one. I'm already struggling to read any single mailing list regularly
not to have another two lists in my inbox.

==
hk

-- 
 _ _     We are free to share code and we code to share freedom
(_X_)yne Foundation, Free Culture Foundry * https://www.dyne.org/donate/