Stefano Zacchiroli schrieb am Montag, den 19. Dezember 2011: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 03:33:18PM +0100, Alexander Wirt wrote: > > Ok I had a longer talk to Michael Meskes and I am now able to > > understand you (and his) position a little bit better. > > > > I (personally) would be willing to accept the lists under the > > following conditions: > > Thanks. Before answering your request let me try to address some of the > concerns which seem to be still pending in this thread. > > There exist companies with an interest in Debian. Those companies are > not part of the Debian Project and, when they need to interact with the > Project they do so by the usual means, e.g. mailing -project/-devel or > other lists for public discussions, or mailing leader@d.o if they look > for an official representative of the project. They have a common > interest (deploying Debian-based solutions for their customers) and they > often face the same problems (e.g. how can we get $foo to "certify" > their software for Debian, so that we can deploy Debian to more > customers?). The best description of what they are, stolen from Michael > Meskes, is probably a "debian business user group". > > I think that Debian, as a Project, doesn't want to --- or maybe isn't > capable of --- fix the problems of such a group. After all, many of us > are in a volunteer distro also because we don't want to care about > market-driven concerns. I'd like to empower people of this group to fix > these problems by themselves. All it takes to start is that we welcome > people to work on these problems *on their own* and a bit of hosting for > them. If they think they need a private list hosting, so be it. > > I don't consider the activities they will be doing as activities of the > Debian Project. I also expect people on the list to interact with the > Project as they have been doing up to now: either on public lists or > contacting the DPL at leader@d.o (FWIW, the DPL routinely redirect > non-private requests addressed to leader@d.o to the most appropriate > public list). So I don't see a problem of full disclosure here, and I > think we should first work on fixing the issue of openness we still have > in Debian before imposing our so called "standards" to others. > > ... unless people want to maintain that Debian should not even *host* a > private list for 3rd party activities. I notice that we have done so in > the past --- I see for example a non archived "sart" list on lists.d.o, > and we have also hosted lists for SPI that nowadays has a private > members list --- and I don't see why we should not do that in presence > of a reasonable request. > > Regarding Don's points about potential internal conflicts of interest in > the group, they are reasonable concerns. But to be honest I don't think > *we*, as Debian, should be worried about that. Having been asked for > some list hosting, I think we should be happy to give it, how the > participants will decide to use it and fix the corresponding governance > problems is up to them. > > Now, to Alexander requests: > > > Before the list is created I want an exact policy who is allowed to > > get subscribed to this list. > > I've provided a tentative answer for this in my first mail, but I'm not > sure it's compatible with the way listmasters work. To bootstrap the > system, would be good enough to say "the DPL moderates subscription > requests and say yes/no to them"? That is exactly what I don't want. I want an objective, testable policy. So that everybody can say without a moderator if he/she/it is suited for this list.
> I'm not particularly thrilled at the idea of doing that on the long run > and I expect the participants to define at some point a governance > structure with criteria of who can get in. But there is a chicken and > egg problem on how to get started and I volunteer to fix that. > > > A better description of the list should be done that leads into a > > press announcement that invites everybody (that matches the > > subscription policy) to participate in the discussion on the list. > > That was already planned, yes. Also because I see no other ways to > attract potentially interested companies to it... If you see that as a > requirement for list creation, I can also draft a press release and post > it to this bug log. good. > > (Optional, but nice): Some representatives of the debian project > > should participate on the list. > > For this, leader@d.o seems to make sense too. For everything else, I > think we should recommend that people use the usual communication > channels instead of relying about specific Debian people being > subscribed to the list. I would prefer some (hopefully objective) project members (maybe the ctte?) to overlook the list that act in place for the project. But as I said, I see this as optional. Alex -- Alexander Wirt, formo...@formorer.de CC99 2DDD D39E 75B0 B0AA B25C D35B BC99 BC7D 020A -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
