On 2023-02-08 13:09:45 +0200 (+0200), Adrian Andreias wrote:
IMHO, some issues with using a mailing list are:
- it's harder to browse and search the archive and you don't have threads organized by (sub)categories - requires some extra steps jump in and to reply to a specific thread if you're not already subscribed to the ML - mail filter per subject [prefix] does not fully work as not all messages use a prefix - other idiosyncrasies like reading a ML email message and if you want to share it, you need to go to the archive URL, find the message and copy the link [...]
Perhaps you missed my other reply, but those are merely properties of the current mailing list software we're using. They're not inherent properties of all mailing list platforms. This is why we're in the process of upgrading to software which does not have many of the limitations you've listed above. It's not going to be the ideal web forum interface, but it seems to strike a good balance of features while not compromising on functionality for people who prefer E-mail based discussion. For an example, here's one of the lists we've moved to the new platform already: https://lists.opendev.org/archives/list/rust-vmm@lists.opendev.org/ If you have an account you can reply right in your web browser, no need to subscribe and send E-mail messages. Posts subscribers receive include an "archived at" URL so they can just share that directly. You're right that categorization and filtering based on subject keywords is not a panacea, it's more of a convention we've established to help people more easily skim messages so they can identify which ones may be of interest or which ones they can safely ignore, and that people new to the community are not all that aware of what keywords we've standardized on nor how to apply them (we do link to that information from the list description, but I'm sure it could be improved on). There's also the option to extend the archive interface for better categorization of messages.
A modern, open source, forum, like Discourse [1], can be used as a ML as well [2], and you can even subscribe to categories (instead of relying on ML subject prefix). So, Discourse is probably able to accommodate those die hard mailing list lovers as well. :) I think migration can be done without disturbing or requiring any action from the ML subscribers. [...]
I've personally been struggling to engage in the Python packaging community ever since the distutils-sig ML was forklifted to Discourse a couple of years ago. The only people who will tell you it's an effective mailing list platform are the people who exclusively use its WebUI. It destroys quoting, destroys threading, eats signed messages, lets participants go back and edit their posts so that what you replied to is no longer what the post says, lets participants delete posts or even entire discussions... it may be a good platform for social interaction but it's quite dreadful for a long-term historical record of discussions. But more to the point, I don't think it's possible to force the community to move to a different platform even if we wanted to. You don't really move a community that way, you reform the community out of the people who are ambivalent to the discussion platform plus the people who refused to use the old platform but like the new one, minus the people who liked the old platform and not the new one. For example, we have a lot of discussion happening in IRC as well. Closing down our IRC channels in favor of native Matrix channels wouldn't mean that those discussions necessarily move to Matrix. They'll move, but they may simply move to other unofficial IRC channels, or to Slack or Discord or... I don't object to someone setting up a web forum dedicated to answering OpenStack user questions, by all means give it a go. I don't personally have time to manage it, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't. I'm not going to stop trying to improve our mailing lists though, and I definitely don't think it's a good idea for us to tell the people who want to use a mailing list that they should stop using it in favor of some different means of discussion. There's no lack of places for people to discuss things, and closing down one platform doesn't ensure that discussion moves where you intend. -- Jeremy Stanley