-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 01/09/2012 09:46 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 03:33:18PM +0100, Alexander Wirt wrote: >> I (personally) would be willing to accept the lists under the following >> conditions: >> >> Before the list is created I want an exact policy who is allowed to get >> subscribed to this list. > > Here is a first draft of such a policy. > > For your convenience, I've integrated it in a revamped list description, as > the policy should be publicly advertised anyhow. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Name: [email protected] > > Rationale: (unchanged) > > Short description: discussions about companies offering Debian support and > contributing back
- ----------------^^^^^ I think that could be interpreted wrong - what about adding 'the needs of' here, too? > > Long description: Discussions about the needs of companies that contribute > to, offer support for, or have other strategic interests in Debian. > > List participation is restricted to representatives of companies that offer > Debian-specific support or services and that are determined to contribute > to Debian. > > As an approximation of the above, subscription requests will be verified > against the following criteria: > > - the requested subscription address should be a company address (i.e. its > domain name should correspond to a company website) > > - the company should advertise on its website Debian-related support or > services, mentioning the Debian name or logo, and linking back to the > Debian website (please provide a link to that page in your subscription > request) > > - at least 2 Debian project members (AKA Debian Developer) should be > working for the company (please name them in your request) > > - preferably, the person requesting subscription should be able to speak as > a company representative, at least for the topics of interest of the > mailing list > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > I think it matches your requirement of being verifiable, at least as long > we assume some good faith, as I think we should. The first 3 points are > easily verifiable. The last point is not, but it is optional. > > Cheers. - -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.de http://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJPHCdEAAoJEOs2Fxpv+UNfZyAP/jesjCiUCMZEKigI38bMFy1r rW0FQOWo5eHBswdUdwUZSQYb4eW6HuTFHUvmGilxOaNuAD8B65DHSU9L6rYembwo WuGVXf/hzzYkfNsv8wZ2X9BFV24kAtfQpYR6kgRKGCdH2+OhnZq3WwcJpnLAIVSs 5zoDCjVgLrzyapXrxuB/O4yd9dPpPVRPPm/P/Bxh6an9fVO5qOnPP/caae2kLv9f touxhIg0cVZXm2UjJjhBOoXOuT8/tSQPPqfZZl/3QT4u48yLzIFedEXdFs9a2J/t JTfRdJsHo72Q8+i2uc9wRa9CwO5+Q5HZYtfaiw2MCzsiORAm0Xrlbp49Oy5BQEbT 7xda0UhQyHSxTVp6T6lOWktles1SNM8mqijhwP0GvPdkz+b232aKB2GgTL3JEXZA GYPxywh/kfW0pDXQR+XWkoiUmzDP8qrqt5CsAoOkwZ9Zu4rNj053MgSEhkNxSlW3 d1ztibwGt1I3JS9/uboUSkZJ4hs9Ya+5Mrg53VuPANzyNgRfr4XgeNbyNQLNaXAt zkAA+QHfuddaHICtukwinUzI1s7G+5KZo9fQBZyyf3RX6lDdqYvNn9iTCn5yizY3 E86pzgKQ9JBgId9G1rzTjuUS21NBe9+KL/ok5V9XGuR24BtwDm1WC3kyYank0epE BMvoPDxR1dxoydZOgNrs =xn9s -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
