Re: [Evolution] Discourse and the situation for Mailman lists hosted by Gnome.org

[Pete Biggs <pete biggs org uk>]

> I have worked with a number of professional organizations that are
> maintained primarily by volunteer staff and effort.  The "powers that
> be" are usually people who are doing a lot of work for free -- even if
> the people at the very top are being paid a little.  Sometimes that's
> because they believe in a "cause," sometimes because they like being
> the expert at something, sometimes because they like being a useful
> part of an organization.   But whatever the gain, it's still for free.

Except Gnome is a Foundation and it is supported by a large number of
very large tech companies. Most of the infrastructure is provided by
Redhat and they have a large presence on the Gnome Foundation board.

The people are not volunteers. They are paid either by the Foundation
through donations or are seconded to the role by their employer.
Companies such as Redhat rely so much on Gnome, it is in their best
interests to keep it running smoothly.

That's not to say that there aren't volunteers involved, of course
there is, but the decisions such as this come from the Foundation Board
which consists of representatives from the sponsors and elected people
from the community. 

I think what disappoints me most is that some of the people have roles
that include community engagement, and that has clearly not happened.
There was never any discussion about this as far as any of the mailing
list members were aware. It just landed on our doorstep.

> I strongly suspect that the reason this change is being made is not for
> some nefarious "control" reason or some bad goal.  I suspect that its
> about making it easier for whoever is volunteering to keep this stuff
> going.

*I* don't think it is for control. I think it's because nobody was
interested in dealing with the issues of Mailman within the Foundation.
They had a tool - Discourse - that looked to them to be perfectly
adequate and decided that there was no reason to spend resources and
manpower on keeping the lists going. I really get the feeling that they
are bewildered by the push-back they are getting from some of the
mailing lists.

I think some of the decision has been driven by the perception that
mailing lists are "old technology" and have had their day. Comments
I've seen in other places clearly show that email is looked down on as
being inferior to other messaging platforms. The problem with following
fads such as this is that there'll be another one along soon. 

Ultimately, as with all big institutions and change, there is no real
concern over individuals. The attitude is often "make the change and
fix the issues after" or "they'll grouch but they'll get over it - we
might break some things but overall it will be worth it"; unfortunately
the "some things" may be a minor part of the whole, but they are
everything to some individuals.

> The solution is almost never for non-volunteers to grumble.  The
> solution is usually to become that free labor and be the guy or gal who
> says "Sure, as long as it's mailman3."

Or walk away knowing that there's no point in continuing.

P.