Should b.p.o continue to send issue to docs@?

I’m using sieve rules to separate b.p.o-sent message and human-sent messages on docs@, so I’m mostly ok with this, but yet I don’t think it’s a good idea to mix human and bots in this mailing list, without my sieve filters it’s nearly impossible to follow, and most human questions in this mailing list kept unanswered.

I’d go to either split this mailing list in two (docs@ and docs-bpo@?) or just to stop forwarding b.p.o notifications to the list, what do you think?

I don’t think b.p.o provides a way to subscribe to a category like “Documentation”, so… I’d appreciate the emails. It’s fine if there’s a separate list, though.

-Fred

+1 to stop forwarding:

  • It is already easy to look at doc issues on the tracker
  • Almost none of the worker that gets done on these issues seems to have originated from the mail forwarding.

Is the python-bugs-list@python.org enough or you’d like a dedicated list for doc-related bugs?

The doc bugs were originally split out from the general bugs list because the group of people who usually handled them were largely separate, and the general bugs list can generate a lot of traffic.

I suspect these concerns haven’t changed significantly, but someone more active than I may have better insight into the current community dynamics.

-Fred

What I propose is to just stop b.p.o sending emails to docs@, and if someone complain about it missing and being usefull, we’ll create a dedicated mailing list. Would it work for you?

1 Like

As noted in Should b.p.o continue to send issue to docs@? - #2 by fdrake, that would work just fine for me.

(To be clear, I mean that it’s worth going ahead and creating the list; I’d subscribe right away.)

-Fred

1 Like

Thanks to our beloved postmaster and sysadmin this is now done:

We now have two mailing lists:

  • docs@ for the humans
  • docs-bugs@ for the notifications

I’m shooting a mail to docs@ to tell interested people to subscribe to docs-bugs@.

1 Like