Proposal: Mailing List Cull

[Adam Farley8]

Hi Alex,






"discuss" <discuss-bounces at openjdk.java.net> wrote on 15/03/2019 19:00:26:

> From: Alex Buckley <alex.buckley at oracle.com>
> To: discuss at openjdk.java.net
> Date: 15/03/2019 19:01
> Subject: Re: Proposal: Mailing List Cull
> Sent by: "discuss" <discuss-bounces at openjdk.java.net>
> 
> On 3/15/2019 4:08 AM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> > "discuss" <discuss-bounces at openjdk.java.net> wrote on 14/03/2019 
20:30:50:
> >> 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.
> >
> > That's a fair comment. Ideally, all of the contacted list owners will
> > respond once an email has been sent out,
> > and they will decide on the right action.
> 
> I guess anyone is free to petition Project Leads to dissolve their 
> allegedly inactive Project. It would helpful for the petition to note 
> the course of action mentioned above (use the sponsoring Group's mailing 

> list).
> 

My intention is not to dissolve projects, but rather to thin down the 
number in inactive, non-archived mailing lists.

If Project leads choose to interpret the inactivity of their mailing lists 
as a sign that the associated project should be shuttered, then that is 
their decision, as it should be.

I want to avoid the implication that I'm trying to end projects here, 
rather than tidying up the list of lists.

> >> 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.
> >
> > Those did seem important, but they looked associated with work that 
been
> > resolved.
> >
> > At a glance, the mr one mentions Spring 2019, and the JEP links 
mention
> > that the last vote is about to finish.
> >
> > Between that and the last email being in 2015, I presumed the list was
> > due for archiving anyway.
> >
> > Not the case?
> 
> A glance at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?
> u=http-3A__mail.openjdk.java.net_mailman_listinfo&d=DwIC-
> g&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=P5m8KWUXJf-
> 
CeVJc0hDGD9AQ2LkcXDC0PMV9ntVw5Ho&m=bRQjtoyYHdtaiq5gNxQ1St7pk56fOkDnnWmi_D5S_eE&s=P1Y1zCAiANrST4bDkPmVUfsneRl6ebmTuVR5PVmrh9c&e=
> shows that 
> some mailing lists are connected with Java SE activities around spec and 

> conformance, rather than OpenJDK activities around implementation and 
> infra. I recommend ignoring the former lists, and focusing on the lists 
> connected directly with OpenJDK Projects.
> 
> Alex
> 

That's a fair suggestion. Since part of the original idea was a structured 

hierarchy of lists on the front-end, we could always filter the spec lists 

later by sticking them into a sub-directory or some such.

But that discussion can happen at a later date, once the cull is complete.

Best Regards

Adam Farley 
IBM Runtimes
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU