<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2020-05-15 12:42, Jörg Knobloch (on
behalf of) wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4c519a1e-607f-f765-4e3e-1db8b9e16e09@beonex.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="moz-text-html" lang="x-unicode">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Jörg Knobloch wrote on maildev (I'm
just re-posting here):<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15/05/2020 09:32, Magnus Melin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f3089ddd-9d6f-8541-02a9-100aeb9fd843@iki.fi"><a
href="https://lists.thunderbird.net/mailman/listinfo/maildev_lists.thunderbird.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">maildev mailing list</a>
<ol>
<li>Most if not all of the maildev members are also on
tb-planning.</li>
<li>The list hasn't had too much traffic, since whether to
choose this or tb-planning is not easy.</li>
<li>Its original purpose of serving as a more moderated
forum for technical discussion has proven generally
non-feasible: details of technical decisions are better
discussed on specific bugs with the people who have, or
are gaining knowledge about the specifics involved. </li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p><tt>Point 1: These lists have different moderation rules.</tt></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Maybe in theory. As a co-moderator of maildev I can only say the
target moderation level can't be upheld. There are many posts that
are in reality very tangential to the discussion, or would be more
appropriate elsewhere. Rejecting a post from someone in the
community still has a high bar since it's just socially acceptable
in general. In practice what we moderate is more or less the pure
spams.</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4c519a1e-607f-f765-4e3e-1db8b9e16e09@beonex.com">
<div class="moz-text-html" lang="x-unicode">
<p><tt>Point 2: These lists have very different purposes: For
example, if you want to discuss the pitfalls of
Mork-removal, then tb-planning is *not* the right list.</tt></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Correct, the specific bug would be the right place for that. </p>
<p>It's good example of where maildev wouldn't work either though:
you'd be extremely lucky to find 5 people worldwide who claim any
deeper understanding of Mork (a good reason we want to get rid of
it). Reality check: unless you have a significantamount of time
assigned to work on the itty gitty details of this and try it out
until you get something working, for many things of this nature
there's not that much discussion to be had. </p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4c519a1e-607f-f765-4e3e-1db8b9e16e09@beonex.com">
<div class="moz-text-html" lang="x-unicode">
<p><tt>Point 3: Not-feasible? Why? We had a few useful
discussions here. <br>
</tt></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Scimming the archives, there are *some* useful discussions, but
not too many that couldn't have fit under tb-planning as well. I'd
be curious to understand why someone would be on tb-planning but
not want to follow any semi-technical discussions. All mailing
lists will contain a doze of information you may not be interested
in - that's just what a mailing list is.</p>
<p>Re why not feasible: see the Mork explanation above as one
example. It's far from an isolated incident. Many times one would
want input on something, that is in a very niche area and the
number of people in the know about it (anywhere!) are counted on
one hand. Expecting to find them on maildev is just not realistic.
You just have to seek them out on a case-to-case basis, and even
then it's difficult to get much feedback, as we've found for
OpenPGP. As further possible examples: getting more of our code
working as content instead of chrome (input from core DOM devs
perhaps), enterprise story (input from enterprise administrators,
ff core devs in this area), release engineering changes (ff
releng), Tor functionality (Tor people, others working on Tor for
Firefox). </p>
<p> -Magnus</p>
</body>
</html>