The mailing listS (plural, there are MANY of these, in many languages and countries/regions) are one of the ways that people EXTERNAL to the OSM project can both gain some insight (by reading) and offer some help or ask for specific assistance (by posting).
Were it not for our mailing lists a decade ago, I would not have been contacted by a ânational route architectâ who has, since, collaboratively with me and many other OSM contributors, managed to develop over the last decade the USAâs national bicycle networks in a sane, well-described, officially designated, wiki-documented, some might even say exemplary fashion. This is but one example of this, I personally both have others and know of others by others.
My point (and yes, this did happen a decade ago, and our âcommunicationsâ DO evolve), is that there must be and remain âmore openâ methods, especially for those who are not Contributors to the project. (Think âlurkersâ and those who âread the news, but donât make the newsâ). Because of how open email is in the âInternet Standardsâ world, it is hard to replicate the wide reach that mailing lists have. Yes, I realize that traffic diminishes as other channels (like this one) become more popular, and âthe network effectâ of mailing lists âgoing quieterâ makes them much less effective (with each and every person who stops using them), I still donât think they are âdead yet.â
I salute all the efforts at consolidating the old help system and this new Discourse: itâs amazing for whom it is for and what it is able to do. But we do have other users, other audiences and other âreasonsâ for these communications. (Some, like Slack, are more chit-chat and interactive-oriented, some are more âfor the recordâ like the way we use wiki to document tags and many other features of our project). And Discussions on wiki pages are not a âhassle,â they are a vital, integral part of how this project was, and IS, built.
SOME mail-lists can / should be âsunsettedâ for sheer lack of traffic. But those lists are the place(s) to discuss that. This is not about being resistant to change, it is about recognizing the long histories, wide access and near-universal standardizations making practicality, compatibility and outreach good reasons to continue them.