[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Mailing List Status Update

[James Y Knight via llvm-dev]

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 3:53 PM Chris Lattner via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On Jun 9, 2021, at 10:50 AM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> Specific to the dev lists, I'm very hesitant about moving from mailing
> lists to discourse.  Why?
>
> Well, the first and most basic is I'm worried about having core
> infrastructure out of our own control.  For all their problems, mailing
> lists are widely supported, there are many vendors/contractors available.
> For discourse, as far as I can tell, there's one vendor.  It's very much a
> take it or leave it situation.  The ability to preserve discussion archives
> through a transition away from discourse someday concerns me.  I regularly
> and routinely need to dig back through llvm-dev threads which are years
> old.  I've also recently had some severely negative customer experiences
> with other tools (most recently discord), and the thought of having my
> employability and ability to contribute to open source tied to my ability
> to get a response from customer service teams at some third party vendor I
> have no leverage with, bluntly, scares me.
>
> Second, I feel that we've overstated the difficulty of maintaining mailing
> lists.  I have to acknowledge that I have little first hand experience
> administering mailman, so maybe I'm way off here.
>
> Hi Philip,
>
> First, despite the similar names, Discord is very different than
> Discourse.  Here I’m only commenting about Discourse, I have no opinion
> about Discord.
>
>
> In this case, I think we need to highly weight the opinions of the people
> actively mainlining the existing systems.  It has become clear that the
> priority isn’t “control our own lists”, it is “make sure they stay up” and
> “get LLVM people out of maintaining them”.
>
> The ongoing load of maintaining these lists (including moderation) and of
> dealing with the security issues that keep coming up are carried by several
> individuals, not by the entire community.  I’m concerned about those
> individuals, but I’m also more broadly concerned about *any* individuals
> being solely responsible for LLVM infra.  Effectively every case we’ve had
> where an individual has driving LLVM infra turns out to be a problem.  LLVM
> as a project isn’t good at running web scale infra, but we highly depend on
> it.
>

I agree that the maintenance issue is definitely a problem which needs to
be solved. And there is some urgency, given the recent problems which
resulted in a need to manually subscribe people to the lists.

But, the proposal on the table doesn't appear to actually address this
issue, because the maintainers of llvm mailman will still continue to be
responsible for keeping it functioning, for the mailing lists which were
not proposed to be migrated. On the other hand, having osci.io run a
mailman3 service for us does seem to be a way to solve this -- and doesn't
require discarding mailing lists entirely.

It seems clear to me that we should outsource this to a proven vendor.
> Your concerns about discourse seem very similar to the discussion about
> moving to Github (being a single vendor who was once much smaller than
> Microsoft).  I think your concerns are best addressed by having the IWG
> propose an answer to “what is our plan if Discourse-the-company goes
> sideways?"
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210622/4a08d4b7/attachment.html>