You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@community.apache.org by Julian Foad <ju...@apache.org> on 2018/12/06 11:56:56 UTC
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an
obvious-looking address responsible?
Julian Foad wrote on 2018-09-14:
> TL;DR: Is [an obvious-looking address] the root of the problem? Need
> [-public and -private variants of said address]?
Can anyone second this proposal or otherwise comment on it?
--
- Julian
[...]
> Another non-private email recently came to private@, and the originator
> referred to sending email "to the PMCs". I don't know but
> suspect that they emailed [an obvious-looking address] in order to
> email "the PMCs". That sounds like a recipe for confusion.
>
> I discovered that in 2005 a resolution [3] was passed to rename all the
> mailing lists formerly called "pmc@PROJECT.apache.org" (which were
> already private) to "private@PROJECT.apache.org" and to use these only
> for strictly private matters. This resolution is incorporated in the PMC
> Required Policies [2] and referred to in [1].
>
> However, [an obvious-looking address] escaped the renaming and [...]
> should therefore only be used for strictly
> private matters, which is not suggested by its name. People aren't
> easily going to learn that. It seems to me it would be a good idea to
> rename [it to have a "-private" suffix].
>
> For matters which we wish to address to PMCs but need not be private, we
> should have some other [obvious-looking address]? This should point to each
> project's most appropriate public mailing list. This would be "dev@" for
> Apache Subversion and probably for most projects, while any project
> could potentially use a public list that is separate from their dev list
> if they wished (although I vaguely recall recommendations to keep both
> kinds of discussions together for the sake of community over code).
>
> Although this is a fairly infrequent and individually small matter, it
> appears to be causing unintended contraventions of the ASF policies and
> I feel it contributes negatively to the Way by habituating people to
> discussing matters in private.
>
> Thoughts, anyone? Is this something we could improve, perhaps quite easily?
>
>
> [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#confidential
> [2] https://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#mailing-list-private
> [3] https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Rename_pmc_lists_to_private.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an
obvious-looking address responsible?
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 07/12/2018 18:31, Rich Bowen wrote:
<snip/>
> I have, over the last few days, seen several of our project communities
> use their private list for discussions that were not, in anyway,
> sensitive. I have called them out on this, but, in each case, my message
> has been utterly ignored.
Wearing my board member hat but not speaking on behalf of the board...
I review each project's private lists for exactly this sort of thing as
part of my preparation for the monthly board meeting.
If I spot threads on private@ that should be on dev@ I note it in the
feedback. I don't recall this happening for multiple reports in a row
for any project.
> I guess my reason for that remark, and my question here, is to what
> degree do we want to *compel* this behavior?
To date, gentle nudging as part of board report feedback seems to be
working. If it didn't work then I expect a board member would get an
action to engage more directly with the project to find out what was
going on and steer things in the right direction.
If the problems continued I can think of a couple of ways to force
correction of this behaviour. However, I suspect that if a project got
to the point where the board felt such action was necessary, the project
almost certainly would have much bigger problems than excessive use of
private lists.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an
obvious-looking address responsible?
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On 12/7/18 12:08 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote on 12/7/18 10:14 AM:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 3:53 PM Jay Vyas <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ...At the CNCF, I’ve noticed that almost all decisions are made in hangouts and in GitHub issues, and proposals..
>>
>> I think this is exactly how Apache projects are supposed to operate:
>
> Yes, absolutely! but one addition is important
>
>> *all* discussions and decisions in public places unless there's a very
>> good reason for them to happen in private.
> ...snip...
>
> s/public places/publicly accessible and archived places/
>
> A key part of the Apache Way is the explicit use of archived
> communication methods and timeshifting final decisions - the minimum of
> 72 hours (or longer) for final decisions.
>
> Anyway, the definitive statement of what should be public vs. private in
> project governance still sounds pretty good as-is:
>
> https://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#mailing-list-naming-policy
>
It kinda feels like everyone is saying the same things in different ways.
We should always push everything possible to public, archived venues. My
*preference* is for this happening on the dev@ list, rather than
creating Yet Another Mailing List for public pmc discussions.
Our tradition is mailing lists because they are public, archived, and
universally accessible. Some of the other venues mentioned are not (one
or more of those things).
I have, over the last few days, seen several of our project communities
use their private list for discussions that were not, in anyway,
sensitive. I have called them out on this, but, in each case, my message
has been utterly ignored.
I guess my reason for that remark, and my question here, is to what
degree do we want to *compel* this behavior?
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
http://rcbowen.com/
@rbowen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an
obvious-looking address responsible?
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote on 12/7/18 10:14 AM:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 3:53 PM Jay Vyas <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...At the CNCF, I’ve noticed that almost all decisions are made in hangouts and in GitHub issues, and proposals..
>
> I think this is exactly how Apache projects are supposed to operate:
Yes, absolutely! but one addition is important
> *all* discussions and decisions in public places unless there's a very
> good reason for them to happen in private.
...snip...
s/public places/publicly accessible and archived places/
A key part of the Apache Way is the explicit use of archived
communication methods and timeshifting final decisions - the minimum of
72 hours (or longer) for final decisions.
Anyway, the definitive statement of what should be public vs. private in
project governance still sounds pretty good as-is:
https://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#mailing-list-naming-policy
--
- Shane
Member
The Apache Software Foundation
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an
obvious-looking address responsible?
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 3:53 PM Jay Vyas <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...At the CNCF, I’ve noticed that almost all decisions are made in hangouts and in GitHub issues, and proposals..
I think this is exactly how Apache projects are supposed to operate:
*all* discussions and decisions in public places unless there's a very
good reason for them to happen in private. Our Maturity Model at
https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
for example does mention that.
For our PMCs, I think generally the only things that need to happen in
private are discussions about people (committer candidates etc.), to
avoid embarassing them if the PMC is not willing to elect them at that
time, and issues related to security as per
http://www.apache.org/security/committers.html - and the occasional
special cases which must be kept to a strict minimum in terms of
frequency and volume.
The Board and many of our community members are regularly reminding
our projects to limit their private discussions to that strict minimum
- if people see Apache projects operating otherwise they are
encouraged to tell their PMCs about it and if needed escalate to the
Board.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an obvious-looking address responsible?
Posted by Jay Vyas <ja...@gmail.com>.
At the CNCF, I’ve noticed that almost all decisions are made in hangouts and in GitHub issues, and proposals. It definitely is a model that can work.
Not saying we should copy them, but just noting that there’s more then one way to skin a cat, and there aren’t any right answers here.
> On Dec 7, 2018, at 9:30 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 13:37, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 2:19 PM Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> ...To me, the question isn't so much about ditching private lists, but
>>> rather having a separate public management list for PMCSs, and keep a
>>> private list for private issues...
>>
>> So for project foo you'd have
>>
>> dev@foo.a.o : public
>> pmc@foo.a.o: public
>> users@foo.a.o: public, for projects which really need such a list
>> private@foo.a.o: private, used very sparingly as is the case now
>>
>> If that's correct, I'd rather use a [PMC] subject line tag on the dev
>> list for things that pmc members must read - consistent with how we
>> use [VOTE], [LAZY] and similar things. People following the dev list
>> need to be aware of PMC matters, if only to motivate them to join
>> those PMCs eventually.
>
> +1
>
> PMC members should be following dev@ anyway.
> If the dev list is too busy, then move the appropriate automated posts
> to issues, commits, notifications etc.
>
>> -Bertrand
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an
obvious-looking address responsible?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 13:37, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 2:19 PM Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> > ...To me, the question isn't so much about ditching private lists, but
> > rather having a separate public management list for PMCSs, and keep a
> > private list for private issues...
>
> So for project foo you'd have
>
> dev@foo.a.o : public
> pmc@foo.a.o: public
> users@foo.a.o: public, for projects which really need such a list
> private@foo.a.o: private, used very sparingly as is the case now
>
> If that's correct, I'd rather use a [PMC] subject line tag on the dev
> list for things that pmc members must read - consistent with how we
> use [VOTE], [LAZY] and similar things. People following the dev list
> need to be aware of PMC matters, if only to motivate them to join
> those PMCs eventually.
+1
PMC members should be following dev@ anyway.
If the dev list is too busy, then move the appropriate automated posts
to issues, commits, notifications etc.
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an
obvious-looking address responsible?
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 2:19 PM Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...To me, the question isn't so much about ditching private lists, but
> rather having a separate public management list for PMCSs, and keep a
> private list for private issues...
So for project foo you'd have
dev@foo.a.o : public
pmc@foo.a.o: public
users@foo.a.o: public, for projects which really need such a list
private@foo.a.o: private, used very sparingly as is the case now
If that's correct, I'd rather use a [PMC] subject line tag on the dev
list for things that pmc members must read - consistent with how we
use [VOTE], [LAZY] and similar things. People following the dev list
need to be aware of PMC matters, if only to motivate them to join
those PMCs eventually.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an
obvious-looking address responsible?
Posted by Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>.
On 12/7/18 2:16 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 11:51 AM sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 13:05, Jay Vyas <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ..Agree / propose: remove all private communication.
>> I don't think that is feasible.
>> There are some discussions that must happen in private...
>
> +1, if we wouldn't have private lists people would use off-list emails
> which is *much* worse.
To me, the question isn't so much about ditching private lists, but
rather having a separate public management list for PMCSs, and keep a
private list for private issues. In an ideal world, this would make
sense, as it'd be a public space for discussions that are open to the
rest of the world, but are somewhat guaranteed to be read by the PMC.
I'm not sure it's something we can really do at this point, but I'd love
for it to happen.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an
obvious-looking address responsible?
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 11:51 AM sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 13:05, Jay Vyas <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ..Agree / propose: remove all private communication.
> I don't think that is feasible.
> There are some discussions that must happen in private...
+1, if we wouldn't have private lists people would use off-list emails
which is *much* worse.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an
obvious-looking address responsible?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 13:05, Jay Vyas <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Agree / propose: remove all private communication.
I don't think that is feasible.
There are some discussions that must happen in private.
For example, reports of security issues and personnel discussions.
> Other foundations are becoming more open then us
Is there any data to support that assertion?
How can one know if another foundation is using private mailing lists or not?
> and the overhead of managing the process is in and of itself a cost we can’t afford in a fast moving world.
I'm not sure what overhead you are referring to here.
> > On Dec 6, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:57 PM Julian Foad <ju...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> Julian Foad wrote on 2018-09-14:
> >>> TL;DR: Is [an obvious-looking address] the root of the problem? Need
> >>> [-public and -private variants of said address]?
> >> Can anyone second this proposal or otherwise comment on it?..
> >
> > I read the quoted text but don't understand exactly what it is that
> > you are suggesting, an example would probably help.
> >
> > -Bertrand
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an obvious-looking address responsible?
Posted by Jay Vyas <ja...@gmail.com>.
Agree / propose: remove all private communication. Other foundations are becoming more open then us, and the overhead of managing the process is in and of itself a cost we can’t afford in a fast moving world.
> On Dec 6, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:57 PM Julian Foad <ju...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Julian Foad wrote on 2018-09-14:
>>> TL;DR: Is [an obvious-looking address] the root of the problem? Need
>>> [-public and -private variants of said address]?
>> Can anyone second this proposal or otherwise comment on it?..
>
> I read the quoted text but don't understand exactly what it is that
> you are suggesting, an example would probably help.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an
obvious-looking address responsible?
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:57 PM Julian Foad <ju...@apache.org> wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote on 2018-09-14:
> > TL;DR: Is [an obvious-looking address] the root of the problem? Need
> > [-public and -private variants of said address]?
> Can anyone second this proposal or otherwise comment on it?..
I read the quoted text but don't understand exactly what it is that
you are suggesting, an example would probably help.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an
obvious-looking address responsible?
Posted by Akramulkarim Karim <ak...@gmail.com>.
Tejgaon. Dhaka
On 14 Dec 2018 04:09, "Adams Musa" <mu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello
On Dec 13, 2018 1:20 PM, "Julian Foad" <ju...@apache.org> wrote:
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> > I read the quoted text but don't understand exactly what it is that
> > you are suggesting, an example would probably help.
>
> Example -- the one that started this thread:
> * somebody wants to ask every project for its best project logo (a
> public matter);
> * they write "Dear PMCs ..." to all projects' *private* mailing lists.
>
> Problem and assumptions:
> * the request really ought to go to the project communities;
> * the initiator (I'm guessing / generalizing) thinks the PMCs are
> appropriate representatives of their communities AND knows an easy way to
> email all the PMCs AND possibly has a fear of addressing a wider audience
> than PMC members;
> * the request goes to the private lists, more or less by accident as
> result of the foregoing, especially as a result of one particular
> obvious-looking address*;
> * the initiator may not even realize that's where their message went.
>
> Solution:
> * make it more difficult to email all projects' private lists and easier
> to email all projects' public lists;
> * despite some people's reservations, contacting dev lists does seem to
> be the consensus; see 2b below;
> * make it more clear what any obvious-looking address* is actually for.
>
> PRIMARY PROPOSAL:
>
> 1a. drop the existing four-letter obvious-looking address*
> - because its name is misleading which (I think) leads people to mis-use
> it.
>
> 1b. create an easier way to email all the projects about a public matter
> - introduce an obvious-looking address* that contains '-public', that
> goes to all dev lists; more details in my earlier mail;
>
> Additional proposals:
>
> 2a. document some guidelines on how to mass-email dev lists without
> upsetting recipients, as have been noted elsewhere in this thread.
>
> 2b. add a way to contact all PMCs about a private matter,
> - perhaps an obvious-looking address* that contains '-private'
> - ONLY if needed: this might be sufficiently rare as to not be needed;
>
> (* By request, to try to reduce spam, I'm deliberately obfuscating the
> "obvious-looking address". I'm sorry that that makes it harder to follow.
> See start of thread for plain disclosure.)
>
> --
> - Julian
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
>
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an
obvious-looking address responsible?
Posted by Adams Musa <mu...@gmail.com>.
Hello
On Dec 13, 2018 1:20 PM, "Julian Foad" <ju...@apache.org> wrote:
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> > I read the quoted text but don't understand exactly what it is that
> > you are suggesting, an example would probably help.
>
> Example -- the one that started this thread:
> * somebody wants to ask every project for its best project logo (a
> public matter);
> * they write "Dear PMCs ..." to all projects' *private* mailing lists.
>
> Problem and assumptions:
> * the request really ought to go to the project communities;
> * the initiator (I'm guessing / generalizing) thinks the PMCs are
> appropriate representatives of their communities AND knows an easy way to
> email all the PMCs AND possibly has a fear of addressing a wider audience
> than PMC members;
> * the request goes to the private lists, more or less by accident as
> result of the foregoing, especially as a result of one particular
> obvious-looking address*;
> * the initiator may not even realize that's where their message went.
>
> Solution:
> * make it more difficult to email all projects' private lists and easier
> to email all projects' public lists;
> * despite some people's reservations, contacting dev lists does seem to
> be the consensus; see 2b below;
> * make it more clear what any obvious-looking address* is actually for.
>
> PRIMARY PROPOSAL:
>
> 1a. drop the existing four-letter obvious-looking address*
> - because its name is misleading which (I think) leads people to mis-use
> it.
>
> 1b. create an easier way to email all the projects about a public matter
> - introduce an obvious-looking address* that contains '-public', that
> goes to all dev lists; more details in my earlier mail;
>
> Additional proposals:
>
> 2a. document some guidelines on how to mass-email dev lists without
> upsetting recipients, as have been noted elsewhere in this thread.
>
> 2b. add a way to contact all PMCs about a private matter,
> - perhaps an obvious-looking address* that contains '-private'
> - ONLY if needed: this might be sufficiently rare as to not be needed;
>
> (* By request, to try to reduce spam, I'm deliberately obfuscating the
> "obvious-looking address". I'm sorry that that makes it harder to follow.
> See start of thread for plain disclosure.)
>
> --
> - Julian
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
>
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an
obvious-looking address responsible?
Posted by Magic Stick <ma...@gmail.com>.
Ok how you want me to do that
On Sun, Dec 16, 2018, 5:46 AM Rich Bowen <rbowen@rcbowen.com wrote:
> -0 to renaming lists.
>
> We've all accidentally sent a message to the wrong list. The solution is to
> apologize and send it to the right list. I don't quite buy that renaming
> lists, and the accompanying confusion, will prevent this from happening
> with the new name.
>
> This is a human problem not a technology problem.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 04:46 Julian Foad <julianfoad@apache.org wrote:
>
> > sebb wrote:
> > > On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 12:20, Julian Foad <ju...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > PRIMARY PROPOSAL:
> > > >
> > > > 1a. drop the existing four-letter obvious-looking address*
> > > > - because its name is misleading which (I think) leads people to
> > mis-use it.
> > >
> > > The address is an alias which forwards to all the project private
> lists.
> > > There is an equivalent alias for all the podling private lists [...]
> >
> > Are you for or against proposal 1a?
> >
> > I'm trying to push you (or anyone) for a direct answer because I would
> > like us to reach some closure on this.
> >
> > > > 1b. create an easier way to email all the projects about a public
> > matter
> > > > - introduce an obvious-looking address* that contains '-public',
> > that goes to all dev lists; more details in my earlier mail;
> > >
> > > However not all projects have a single dev@ list; some may not have
> one
> > at all.
> > > This will make it trickier to create and maintain the aliases.
> >
> > As I wrote previously, "This would be "dev@" for Apache Subversion and
> > probably for most projects, while any project could potentially use a
> > public list that is separate from their dev list if they wished
> (although I
> > vaguely recall recommendations to keep both kinds of discussions together
> > for the sake of community over code)."
> >
> > All projects must have a public mailing list even if it not named 'dev@
> '.
> >
> > Are you for or against proposal 1b?
> >
> > The details can be worked out afterwards.
> >
> > > > Additional proposals:
> > > >
> > > > 2a. document some guidelines on how to mass-email dev lists without
> > upsetting recipients, as have been noted elsewhere in this thread.
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > > 2b. add a way to contact all PMCs about a private matter,
> > > > - perhaps an obvious-looking address* that contains '-private'
> > > > - ONLY if needed: this might be sufficiently rare as to not be
> > needed;
> > >
> > > This currently exists (see above); but perhaps the alias could be
> > renamed.
> >
> > Well, yes -- that's pretty much the basis of the entire proposal.
> >
> > Are you for or against proposal 2b, or do you not know if it is really
> > needed?
> >
> > (It seems to me it's safest/easiest to rename/replace what exists, rather
> > than debate removing it.)
> >
> > > If it is decided to have public and private aliases for the
> > > projects/podlings, then the existing short aliases could be changed to
> > > return a bounce message giving details of the new aliases.
> >
> > That sounds like a good addition to ease the transition.
> >
> > - Julian
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an
obvious-looking address responsible?
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
-0 to renaming lists.
We've all accidentally sent a message to the wrong list. The solution is to
apologize and send it to the right list. I don't quite buy that renaming
lists, and the accompanying confusion, will prevent this from happening
with the new name.
This is a human problem not a technology problem.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 04:46 Julian Foad <julianfoad@apache.org wrote:
> sebb wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 12:20, Julian Foad <ju...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > PRIMARY PROPOSAL:
> > >
> > > 1a. drop the existing four-letter obvious-looking address*
> > > - because its name is misleading which (I think) leads people to
> mis-use it.
> >
> > The address is an alias which forwards to all the project private lists.
> > There is an equivalent alias for all the podling private lists [...]
>
> Are you for or against proposal 1a?
>
> I'm trying to push you (or anyone) for a direct answer because I would
> like us to reach some closure on this.
>
> > > 1b. create an easier way to email all the projects about a public
> matter
> > > - introduce an obvious-looking address* that contains '-public',
> that goes to all dev lists; more details in my earlier mail;
> >
> > However not all projects have a single dev@ list; some may not have one
> at all.
> > This will make it trickier to create and maintain the aliases.
>
> As I wrote previously, "This would be "dev@" for Apache Subversion and
> probably for most projects, while any project could potentially use a
> public list that is separate from their dev list if they wished (although I
> vaguely recall recommendations to keep both kinds of discussions together
> for the sake of community over code)."
>
> All projects must have a public mailing list even if it not named 'dev@'.
>
> Are you for or against proposal 1b?
>
> The details can be worked out afterwards.
>
> > > Additional proposals:
> > >
> > > 2a. document some guidelines on how to mass-email dev lists without
> upsetting recipients, as have been noted elsewhere in this thread.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > > 2b. add a way to contact all PMCs about a private matter,
> > > - perhaps an obvious-looking address* that contains '-private'
> > > - ONLY if needed: this might be sufficiently rare as to not be
> needed;
> >
> > This currently exists (see above); but perhaps the alias could be
> renamed.
>
> Well, yes -- that's pretty much the basis of the entire proposal.
>
> Are you for or against proposal 2b, or do you not know if it is really
> needed?
>
> (It seems to me it's safest/easiest to rename/replace what exists, rather
> than debate removing it.)
>
> > If it is decided to have public and private aliases for the
> > projects/podlings, then the existing short aliases could be changed to
> > return a bounce message giving details of the new aliases.
>
> That sounds like a good addition to ease the transition.
>
> - Julian
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
>
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an
obvious-looking address responsible?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 22:31, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 14.12.2018 12:00, sebb wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 09:46, Julian Foad <ju...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> All projects must have a public mailing list even if it not named 'dev@'.
> > Yes, but for a large PMC there may be multiple public lists that cover
> > different products.
> > For example axis, bookkeeper, db, hadoop etc.
>
>
> I don't see any problem here. They could (and should if this proposal
> gets implemented) add all these dev@-like lists to the proposed
> (projetcts@? projects-public@?) list.
Agreed it's not particularly difficult to create an alias, but who is
going to do it?
Someone has to set it up and then maintain the alias.
That's quite a lot of work, and involves detailed knowledge of the
project lists.
> -- Brane
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an
obvious-looking address responsible?
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>.
On 14.12.2018 12:00, sebb wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 09:46, Julian Foad <ju...@apache.org> wrote:
>> All projects must have a public mailing list even if it not named 'dev@'.
> Yes, but for a large PMC there may be multiple public lists that cover
> different products.
> For example axis, bookkeeper, db, hadoop etc.
I don't see any problem here. They could (and should if this proposal
gets implemented) add all these dev@-like lists to the proposed
(projetcts@? projects-public@?) list.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an
obvious-looking address responsible?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 09:46, Julian Foad <ju...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> sebb wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 12:20, Julian Foad <ju...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > PRIMARY PROPOSAL:
> > >
> > > 1a. drop the existing four-letter obvious-looking address*
> > > - because its name is misleading which (I think) leads people to mis-use it.
> >
> > The address is an alias which forwards to all the project private lists.
> > There is an equivalent alias for all the podling private lists [...]
>
> Are you for or against proposal 1a?
I don't see the need to change the list name, but I would not oppose it.
> I'm trying to push you (or anyone) for a direct answer because I would like us to reach some closure on this.
>
> > > 1b. create an easier way to email all the projects about a public matter
> > > - introduce an obvious-looking address* that contains '-public', that goes to all dev lists; more details in my earlier mail;
> >
> > However not all projects have a single dev@ list; some may not have one at all.
> > This will make it trickier to create and maintain the aliases.
>
> As I wrote previously, "This would be "dev@" for Apache Subversion and probably for most projects, while any project could potentially use a public list that is separate from their dev list if they wished (although I vaguely recall recommendations to keep both kinds of discussions together for the sake of community over code)."
>
> All projects must have a public mailing list even if it not named 'dev@'.
Yes, but for a large PMC there may be multiple public lists that cover
different products.
For example axis, bookkeeper, db, hadoop etc.
All PMC members must follow the private@ list; I'm not sure they have
to follow all the dev lists.
> Are you for or against proposal 1b?
I am not opposed to it, but I'm not sure it will work in practice with
the larger PMCs.
> The details can be worked out afterwards.
The devil is in the details.
Can you guarantee that all relevant dev lists are included?
> > > Additional proposals:
> > >
> > > 2a. document some guidelines on how to mass-email dev lists without upsetting recipients, as have been noted elsewhere in this thread.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > > 2b. add a way to contact all PMCs about a private matter,
> > > - perhaps an obvious-looking address* that contains '-private'
> > > - ONLY if needed: this might be sufficiently rare as to not be needed;
> >
> > This currently exists (see above); but perhaps the alias could be renamed.
>
> Well, yes -- that's pretty much the basis of the entire proposal.
>
> Are you for or against proposal 2b, or do you not know if it is really needed?
I don't think it makes sense as stated; there is already an alias for
all the private@ mailing lists.
I am -1 to dropping the list entirely.
I am not opposed to renaming the existing list.
(The same considerations apply to the podlings private list alias)
> (It seems to me it's safest/easiest to rename/replace what exists, rather than debate removing it.)
>
> > If it is decided to have public and private aliases for the
> > projects/podlings, then the existing short aliases could be changed to
> > return a bounce message giving details of the new aliases.
>
> That sounds like a good addition to ease the transition.
It needs to be a permanent bounce, but hopefully it will be used less
and less over time.
Ditto for podlings, of course.
> - Julian
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an obvious-looking address responsible?
Posted by Julian Foad <ju...@apache.org>.
sebb wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 12:20, Julian Foad <ju...@apache.org> wrote:
> > PRIMARY PROPOSAL:
> >
> > 1a. drop the existing four-letter obvious-looking address*
> > - because its name is misleading which (I think) leads people to mis-use it.
>
> The address is an alias which forwards to all the project private lists.
> There is an equivalent alias for all the podling private lists [...]
Are you for or against proposal 1a?
I'm trying to push you (or anyone) for a direct answer because I would like us to reach some closure on this.
> > 1b. create an easier way to email all the projects about a public matter
> > - introduce an obvious-looking address* that contains '-public', that goes to all dev lists; more details in my earlier mail;
>
> However not all projects have a single dev@ list; some may not have one at all.
> This will make it trickier to create and maintain the aliases.
As I wrote previously, "This would be "dev@" for Apache Subversion and probably for most projects, while any project could potentially use a public list that is separate from their dev list if they wished (although I vaguely recall recommendations to keep both kinds of discussions together for the sake of community over code)."
All projects must have a public mailing list even if it not named 'dev@'.
Are you for or against proposal 1b?
The details can be worked out afterwards.
> > Additional proposals:
> >
> > 2a. document some guidelines on how to mass-email dev lists without upsetting recipients, as have been noted elsewhere in this thread.
>
> +1
>
> > 2b. add a way to contact all PMCs about a private matter,
> > - perhaps an obvious-looking address* that contains '-private'
> > - ONLY if needed: this might be sufficiently rare as to not be needed;
>
> This currently exists (see above); but perhaps the alias could be renamed.
Well, yes -- that's pretty much the basis of the entire proposal.
Are you for or against proposal 2b, or do you not know if it is really needed?
(It seems to me it's safest/easiest to rename/replace what exists, rather than debate removing it.)
> If it is decided to have public and private aliases for the
> projects/podlings, then the existing short aliases could be changed to
> return a bounce message giving details of the new aliases.
That sounds like a good addition to ease the transition.
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an
obvious-looking address responsible?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 12:20, Julian Foad <ju...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> > I read the quoted text but don't understand exactly what it is that
> > you are suggesting, an example would probably help.
>
> Example -- the one that started this thread:
> * somebody wants to ask every project for its best project logo (a public matter);
> * they write "Dear PMCs ..." to all projects' *private* mailing lists.
>
> Problem and assumptions:
> * the request really ought to go to the project communities;
> * the initiator (I'm guessing / generalizing) thinks the PMCs are appropriate representatives of their communities AND knows an easy way to email all the PMCs AND possibly has a fear of addressing a wider audience than PMC members;
> * the request goes to the private lists, more or less by accident as result of the foregoing, especially as a result of one particular obvious-looking address*;
> * the initiator may not even realize that's where their message went.
>
> Solution:
> * make it more difficult to email all projects' private lists and easier to email all projects' public lists;
> * despite some people's reservations, contacting dev lists does seem to be the consensus; see 2b below;
> * make it more clear what any obvious-looking address* is actually for.
>
> PRIMARY PROPOSAL:
>
> 1a. drop the existing four-letter obvious-looking address*
> - because its name is misleading which (I think) leads people to mis-use it.
The address is an alias which forwards to all the project private lists.
There is an equivalent alias for all the podling private lists
(additional letter 'p' at the start).
> 1b. create an easier way to email all the projects about a public matter
> - introduce an obvious-looking address* that contains '-public', that goes to all dev lists; more details in my earlier mail;
However not all projects have a single dev@ list; some may not have one at all.
This will make it trickier to create and maintain the aliases.
> Additional proposals:
>
> 2a. document some guidelines on how to mass-email dev lists without upsetting recipients, as have been noted elsewhere in this thread.
+1
> 2b. add a way to contact all PMCs about a private matter,
> - perhaps an obvious-looking address* that contains '-private'
> - ONLY if needed: this might be sufficiently rare as to not be needed;
This currently exists (see above); but perhaps the alias could be renamed.
If it is decided to have public and private aliases for the
projects/podlings, then the existing short aliases could be changed to
return a bounce message giving details of the new aliases.
> (* By request, to try to reduce spam, I'm deliberately obfuscating the "obvious-looking address". I'm sorry that that makes it harder to follow. See start of thread for plain disclosure.)
>
> --
> - Julian
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an
obvious-looking address responsible?
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:20 PM Julian Foad <ju...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...1a. drop the existing four-letter obvious-looking address*
> - because its name is misleading which (I think) leads people to mis-use it...
I am against dropping those. Adding a -private suffix might make their
destinations clearer if people really want that.
> ...1b. create an easier way to email all the projects about a public matter...
I don't think that's needed, there's only a rare need for that.
To me the best way of communicating to all projects in public is to
write a blog post or wiki page with the message, pointing to a place
to discuss (this list?) and then just send the URL of that page
around. There are multiple channels for doing that (current pmc
aliases, twitter, this list etc) and by sending just the URL you make
sure discussions are not scattered.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an
obvious-looking address responsible?
Posted by محمد الخيلي <hm...@gmail.com>.
سلام لا اعرف لما هاده؟
في السبت، ١٥ ديسمبر، ٢٠١٨ ١٦:٢١، كتب Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacretaz@apache.org>:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 4:45 PM Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > ...While the pmcs alias isn't perfect, I'm of the view that we need to
> send
> > mails like the logos mail rarely enough that the pmcs alias is good
> enough...
>
> +1
>
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
>
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an
obvious-looking address responsible?
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 4:45 PM Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...While the pmcs alias isn't perfect, I'm of the view that we need to send
> mails like the logos mail rarely enough that the pmcs alias is good enough...
+1
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an
obvious-looking address responsible?
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 14/12/2018 21:15, Craig Russell wrote:
> Hi Julian,
>
> I've read this thread and I'm afraid I don't understand the problem you're trying to solve.
>
> For wide-reach public information we already have committers@apache.org
>
> For wide-reach private information we already have members@apache.org
>
> For wide-reach private information that will reach pmc members who are not foundation members, while not spamming apache foundation members who are not members of any pmc, we have the existing pmcs@ alias.
>
> Perhaps it would help me if you give an example of a communication that would require a different recipient list. I'm really stumped.
>
> The specific example that spawned this thread (from a different thread) was a request for hi-res logos. Would committers@ not work for this?
Not really. We try to keep committers@ limited to mail we expect every
committer to need to read.
While the pmcs alias isn't perfect, I'm of the view that we need to send
mails like the logos mail rarely enough that the pmcs alias is good enough.
Mark
>
> Craig
>
>> On Dec 13, 2018, at 4:20 AM, Julian Foad <ju...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>> I read the quoted text but don't understand exactly what it is that
>>> you are suggesting, an example would probably help.
>>
>> Example -- the one that started this thread:
>> * somebody wants to ask every project for its best project logo (a public matter);
>> * they write "Dear PMCs ..." to all projects' *private* mailing lists.
>>
>> Problem and assumptions:
>> * the request really ought to go to the project communities;
>> * the initiator (I'm guessing / generalizing) thinks the PMCs are appropriate representatives of their communities AND knows an easy way to email all the PMCs AND possibly has a fear of addressing a wider audience than PMC members;
>> * the request goes to the private lists, more or less by accident as result of the foregoing, especially as a result of one particular obvious-looking address*;
>> * the initiator may not even realize that's where their message went.
>>
>> Solution:
>> * make it more difficult to email all projects' private lists and easier to email all projects' public lists;
>> * despite some people's reservations, contacting dev lists does seem to be the consensus; see 2b below;
>> * make it more clear what any obvious-looking address* is actually for.
>>
>> PRIMARY PROPOSAL:
>>
>> 1a. drop the existing four-letter obvious-looking address*
>> - because its name is misleading which (I think) leads people to mis-use it.
>>
>> 1b. create an easier way to email all the projects about a public matter
>> - introduce an obvious-looking address* that contains '-public', that goes to all dev lists; more details in my earlier mail;
>>
>> Additional proposals:
>>
>> 2a. document some guidelines on how to mass-email dev lists without upsetting recipients, as have been noted elsewhere in this thread.
>>
>> 2b. add a way to contact all PMCs about a private matter,
>> - perhaps an obvious-looking address* that contains '-private'
>> - ONLY if needed: this might be sufficiently rare as to not be needed;
>>
>> (* By request, to try to reduce spam, I'm deliberately obfuscating the "obvious-looking address". I'm sorry that that makes it harder to follow. See start of thread for plain disclosure.)
>>
>> --
>> - Julian
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>>
>
> Craig L Russell
> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
> clr@apache.org <ma...@apache.org> http://db.apache.org/jdo <http://db.apache.org/jdo>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an obvious-looking address responsible?
Posted by Julian Foad <ju...@apache.org>.
Craig Russell wrote:
> For wide-reach public information we already have committers@apache.org
I'm going to accept this as the Best Answer, combined with Bertrand's "send a URL", and will reply as such to future shouldn't-be-private mails.
The should-be-public topics that inspired me to write this proposal were:
- please send us your project logos
- about your project joining Kibble demo projects
- project, please promote ApacheCon
It seems like committers@ is basically good enough for those. It may not be ideal, but it exists.
It's not quite right for the follow-up to Kibble: the team wanted to contact just the projects that had signed up for the Kibble demo. We provided no very easy way to contact the PMCs publicly, because we don't require that each project designates a specific list (or lists) for that purpose. That doesn't seem right. We are making it easy to do the wrong thing (contact PMCs privately) and hard to do the right thing. I still think we should be concerned about that.
It seems to me that ASF policy pretty much requires there to be a way to contact each project publicly. At the moment, there is, but it's not easily/automatically discoverable or clearly designated for the purpose.
As for renaming the all-private-lists alias that doesn't sound like it's private, I still think that's a good simple obvious idea but with pretty much no support for it expressed here I will not pursue it.
As for the writing of guidelines about how to mass-email politely: that no longer seems critical, as the "send a URL" method probably accomplishes most of that by itself.
Thanks, everyone, for weighing in.
Thanks,
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an
obvious-looking address responsible?
Posted by Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>.
Hi Julian,
I've read this thread and I'm afraid I don't understand the problem you're trying to solve.
For wide-reach public information we already have committers@apache.org
For wide-reach private information we already have members@apache.org
For wide-reach private information that will reach pmc members who are not foundation members, while not spamming apache foundation members who are not members of any pmc, we have the existing pmcs@ alias.
Perhaps it would help me if you give an example of a communication that would require a different recipient list. I'm really stumped.
The specific example that spawned this thread (from a different thread) was a request for hi-res logos. Would committers@ not work for this?
Craig
> On Dec 13, 2018, at 4:20 AM, Julian Foad <ju...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> I read the quoted text but don't understand exactly what it is that
>> you are suggesting, an example would probably help.
>
> Example -- the one that started this thread:
> * somebody wants to ask every project for its best project logo (a public matter);
> * they write "Dear PMCs ..." to all projects' *private* mailing lists.
>
> Problem and assumptions:
> * the request really ought to go to the project communities;
> * the initiator (I'm guessing / generalizing) thinks the PMCs are appropriate representatives of their communities AND knows an easy way to email all the PMCs AND possibly has a fear of addressing a wider audience than PMC members;
> * the request goes to the private lists, more or less by accident as result of the foregoing, especially as a result of one particular obvious-looking address*;
> * the initiator may not even realize that's where their message went.
>
> Solution:
> * make it more difficult to email all projects' private lists and easier to email all projects' public lists;
> * despite some people's reservations, contacting dev lists does seem to be the consensus; see 2b below;
> * make it more clear what any obvious-looking address* is actually for.
>
> PRIMARY PROPOSAL:
>
> 1a. drop the existing four-letter obvious-looking address*
> - because its name is misleading which (I think) leads people to mis-use it.
>
> 1b. create an easier way to email all the projects about a public matter
> - introduce an obvious-looking address* that contains '-public', that goes to all dev lists; more details in my earlier mail;
>
> Additional proposals:
>
> 2a. document some guidelines on how to mass-email dev lists without upsetting recipients, as have been noted elsewhere in this thread.
>
> 2b. add a way to contact all PMCs about a private matter,
> - perhaps an obvious-looking address* that contains '-private'
> - ONLY if needed: this might be sufficiently rare as to not be needed;
>
> (* By request, to try to reduce spam, I'm deliberately obfuscating the "obvious-looking address". I'm sorry that that makes it harder to follow. See start of thread for plain disclosure.)
>
> --
> - Julian
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
clr@apache.org <ma...@apache.org> http://db.apache.org/jdo <http://db.apache.org/jdo>
Re: Keeping PMC communications public when possible -- is an
obvious-looking address responsible?
Posted by Julian Foad <ju...@apache.org>.
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> I read the quoted text but don't understand exactly what it is that
> you are suggesting, an example would probably help.
Example -- the one that started this thread:
* somebody wants to ask every project for its best project logo (a public matter);
* they write "Dear PMCs ..." to all projects' *private* mailing lists.
Problem and assumptions:
* the request really ought to go to the project communities;
* the initiator (I'm guessing / generalizing) thinks the PMCs are appropriate representatives of their communities AND knows an easy way to email all the PMCs AND possibly has a fear of addressing a wider audience than PMC members;
* the request goes to the private lists, more or less by accident as result of the foregoing, especially as a result of one particular obvious-looking address*;
* the initiator may not even realize that's where their message went.
Solution:
* make it more difficult to email all projects' private lists and easier to email all projects' public lists;
* despite some people's reservations, contacting dev lists does seem to be the consensus; see 2b below;
* make it more clear what any obvious-looking address* is actually for.
PRIMARY PROPOSAL:
1a. drop the existing four-letter obvious-looking address*
- because its name is misleading which (I think) leads people to mis-use it.
1b. create an easier way to email all the projects about a public matter
- introduce an obvious-looking address* that contains '-public', that goes to all dev lists; more details in my earlier mail;
Additional proposals:
2a. document some guidelines on how to mass-email dev lists without upsetting recipients, as have been noted elsewhere in this thread.
2b. add a way to contact all PMCs about a private matter,
- perhaps an obvious-looking address* that contains '-private'
- ONLY if needed: this might be sufficiently rare as to not be needed;
(* By request, to try to reduce spam, I'm deliberately obfuscating the "obvious-looking address". I'm sorry that that makes it harder to follow. See start of thread for plain disclosure.)
--
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org