Proposal: Mailing List Cull

Alex Buckley alex.buckley at
Thu Mar 14 20:30:50 UTC 2019

On 3/14/2019 4:09 AM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> Alex: What I'm imagining is a smaller number of active lists.
> You're right to assert that active projects should have a mailing list,
> and it is not my intention to imply otherwise.
> Perhaps less active (read: near-silent), or completed, projects could
> share a common list, or use one of the more active lists?

I think that is for each Project to decide, and that the typical 
decision will be to refer people to the mailing list of the Group which 
sponsored the Project.

For example, when the Build Infrastructure Project voted to dissolve 
[1], someone updated the mailing list page [2] to refer to the Build 
Group's list, `build-dev`. It was a similar story when the ThreeTen 
Project voted to dissolve [3][4]. Looking to the future, I imagine the 
Annotations Pipeline 2.0 Project would decide to stand down 
`anno-pipeline-dev` in favor of the sponsoring Compiler Group's list, 
`compiler-dev`, but that the Penrose Project might want to refer people 
to the Jigsaw Project's list instead of the Core Libraries Group's list.


Where your JBS issue is recording decisions (e.g. archive sctp-dev), I 
recommend you link to the thread which actually made the decision.

Not sure why java-se-mr-spec-comments or java-se-spec-comments are on 
your radar. The former clearly has purpose [5] and the latter is clearly 
associated with the significant java-se-spec-* lists.





> This would need to be mentioned on the project page, yes.
> And speaking of common lists, I keep having to copy the Appendices between
> my emails to ensure changes aren't lost.
> This invites errors, so here's a JBS Task to store the shared list where
> everyone can tweak it:
> Unsure if this is a misuse of the bug system. I expect someone will
> complain if it is. :)
> Best Regards
> Adam Farley
> IBM Runtimes

More information about the discuss mailing list