On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: > > > > infrastructure@ is an open list as far as I can tell. I'm subscribed and > > am a committer like yourself. > > Henri, > > thanks, > > I can tell it that infrastructure@ is not `open list`. > # Guess it why. can you pick up infrastructure@ > # archives at eyebrowse? -- really *closed* LIST it is, > # from my point of views Accepted. You can email the mail-list software for archived values, but I've never found it that easy. I'd suggest you say that it is not an archived list rather than not an open list, as I think many would take that phrase to mean you think infrastructure is a private list. > discussed at [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- (Could you please > *give* me the number of the subscribers, if you can -- au -- > and the nice url for the reference of the infrastructural matters?) Nope, I'm a clueful newbie with the mail list software. Still trying to stumble through how to remove addresses from lists (some annoying auto-replies hitting moderation). > However, most of the committers (800 people, IIRC) would not > have access to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wow ... really *high traffic* > list, if i remember correctly. --- not opened. > > In such a situation, using "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" would be better > to notify the serious changes in the infrastructural issue. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] is very nice list for such notifications of > serious infrastructural issues. (Do believe it -- objections?) I don't believe that anyone on the infrastructure list would disagree that [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or community or whatever) is the correct place to notify ASF people of serious changes. I'm pretty sure we were all told when Icarus/Daedalus became Minotaur, and when the email server was under major virus attack. Being philosophical: Your issue is over what is considered serious. Somewhere a line has to be drawn between information saturation (shall we ask them to forward all mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] :)) and lack of information, and as the number of people who'll complain if it goes a little over is far noisier than the number who'll complain if it goes a little under, it seems natural that those of us in the minority will suffer a little. Moderators will be surprised as the amount of spam drops (I was anyway). People using OS/2 will have problems as <insert bug> happens. Non Latin-1 char-set issues might occur. While this sucks for those having these occasional issues, the reality is that (in open-source or closed-source communities), if it's not someone's itch, they won't scratch it. The most we could ask for and expect to have happen is that the Infrastructure's PMC report was sent to committers (in an edited form as I suspect they have a much higher level of privacy than other PMC's require). This wouldn't help you as it would mainly be the stuff that has already been sent out, possibly with some additional stuff about new machines. So what solutions can be applied? * My personal solution at the moment is to start recording Infra information that is important to Jakarta on the Jakarta Wiki. Who we should talk to get what done etc. Major changes can then be emailed out to the Jakarta community. Scratch a personal itch, and something may grow. At the very worst your personal itch gets scratched. * Be forgiving to the infrastructure volunteers. While the 'thank them for all the stuff they are doing for us' can get tiring, the reality is that the ASF seems to be growing in resources and yet Brian has not collapsed from exhaustion. Just some sanctimonious thoughts, Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
