Re: private mailing list for committers

[Tetsuya Kitahata <te...@apache.org>]

Hi,

> Thanks for posting the clarification - which would puts me in favor of
> Felipe Leme's suggestion for a private list for committers.
> 
> Steve.

+1 -- I'm in favor, too.

Suggestion:

"world at apache dot org"

Cheers,

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Tetsuya Kitahata --  Terra-International (Independent)
E-mail: tetsuya@apache.org (subject should be written in ASCII only)

Re: private mailing list for committers

[Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>]

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Santiago Gala wrote:

> What would be the advantages?

The only advantage I can think of is that many hypothetical conversations 
on members@ that want to be private would be able to include committers.

Every now and then I see an email that says "We should discuss this on 
members" and I realise the thread is about to leave my awareness. That 
said, many of these threads probably should be only going to members as 
it's their role to make such shareholder style decisions so I don't think 
having this list available would make any difference except to confuse 
community@.

I'm a -0.

>> Suggestion:
>>
>> "world at apache dot org"
>>
>
> world does not fit well with a closed list. If it got approved (and I'm
> against it) I would rather choose a different name.

Agreed. -1 on world@.

Hen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org

Re: private mailing list for committers

[Santiago Gala <sg...@hisitech.com>]

El mar, 05-10-2004 a las 09:45 +0900, Tetsuya Kitahata escribió: 
> Hi,
> 
> > Thanks for posting the clarification - which would puts me in favor of
> > Felipe Leme's suggestion for a private list for committers.
> > 
> > Steve.
> 
> +1 -- I'm in favor, too.
> 

What would be the advantages?
- I will not use even members@apache.org or board@apache.org for any
truly confidential issue. Lists with 130+ people inside are nos
trustable WRT confidentiality (1300+ people would be almost guarantee of
fast filtration).

OTOH, having a restricted but public list is beneficial for the
community as a whole (people can observe how we do operate from the
outside) and reduces "bad" behavior (people will feel ashamed about
certain messages and will refrain for sending them knowing that they
will be archived).

There are only a few restricted lists in the ASF: 
- pmc lists
- members
- board
- fundraising, press and concom

and all those lists are open to all members (130+ currently and
growing).

The reason why those are confidential is because there are value
judgement about people occasionally. Also, in some cases, discussions
about the behavior of other companies or group which, while not beeing
exactly confidential, people would rather not make in a public forum.

A list "private" to 1300 people is not confidential no matter how you
look at it, so the only reason that I can see to make it a private list
would be for participants to avoid getting ashamed about "bad" behavior
in public. If this is indeed the reason, I'm strongly -1. If it is not,
I would like someone to explain me the benefits of having a "private"
list with 1300 subscribers. This discussion, BTW, is almost the same as
the one that other people listed, just before ApacheCON 2002, which
ended with community being restricted to post but archived. I would vote
completely open, and in fact I offered myself as a relay for any
non-committer wanted to expose ideas in the community@apache.org list,
and I do it again. (I reserve the right to not relay anything which
scores over 5 in my spamassassin setting :-P )

> Suggestion:
> 
> "world at apache dot org"
> 

world does not fit well with a closed list. If it got approved (and I'm
against it) I would rather choose a different name.
> 

Regards
-- 
Santiago Gala <sg...@hisitech.com>
High Sierra Technology, SLU