Forgive me for answering 3 posts in one here... On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 05:57:43AM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > But what if the major influx of new contributors that you proponents of this > proposal are hoping for never arrives? (Something I think is quite likely to > happen, considering that the main barrier to entry is NOT the mailing list.) > Then you will have driven away existing key contributors without anyone to > replace them, and Fedora will be dead. I don't see a 'we are all in on discourse, please turn off the mailing lists' until there's a critical mass of discussion over on discourse. Perhaps thats just me, I can't speak for the council, but if things don't go well at some point, the lists will still be here. > > Also keep in mind that experienced contributors are the only ones able to > work on certain complex tasks and also to mentor new contributors so that > they will eventually become experienced. Chase them away and all the > experience will be lost, no matter how many new contributors you attract. > > The first priority of a project MUST ALWAYS be to keep the existing > contributors. Attracting new ones can only come second. I think you are conflating contributors with "packagers". Granted packagers are super important, but there's a ton of other contributors out there. People writing tests, making documentation, etc. Also, improving things here for everyone who wants to talk about discussion doesn't mean we shouldn't try and improve other parts of being a packager, and in fact there's things ongoing to do that. ...snip... On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 10:07:42AM -0400, Solomon Peachy via devel wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 07:01:15AM -0400, Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > breaking mail altogether. My frustration and anger comes from the fact that > > I spent most of the last 5 years assuming that it was somebody else's > > problem and they would take care of it so I could focus on keeping other > > things running. > > This is a very important point -- Is RH/Fedora prepared to properly > handle the maintainence, administrative, moderation, etc burden of > scaling up the Discourse instance? Our discourse instance is hosted for us by discourse. We shouldn't have to do maint on it, but we will have to do moderation, etc. > Or will all of Fedora's customizations make it into another special > snowflake instance that results in very painful upgrade paths, leaving > it to become yet another service left to coast along under its own > inertia until this cycle repeats itself again? > > I mean, it's all fine to say "but Discourse is actively developed" -- if > you never actually upgrade/update it to match upstream, it's no > different than the situation we have with our mailman3 today, where > we're literally years behind the curve. They are managing it for us. We don't have to do anything except pay them. :) Also, we do have full backups of the database and assets. In the unlikely event that we needed to pull out our data, we could (all be it with some pain trying to export it into another system). kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
