That policy applies to the private lists of PMCs, such as libcloud-private. I do not believe in spirit that policy should apply to committers@ -- and, it most likely doesn't. While committers@ is indeed "private", it is not a PMC private list which I believe that policy is discussing.
Infra is not violating anything. GSoC is obviously a special case, but I'd assert that it's the responsibility of mentors to keep their students aware of what is going on. Just don't quote committers@ to do it, is the only rub. Let's not get carried away going after Infra when there was a breakdown of communication between a mentor and his student, they have enough on their plate as it is. On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Konstantin Kolinko <knst.koli...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2012/8/13 Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name>: >> I think there are two separate problems here, >> >> 1) Given that an update was sent to committers@, is it ok to quote it or >> summarise it or mention its existence or non of the above >> >> 2) Where should updates be sent to >> >> >> The latter is being debated on infra-dev@. The former I'm unhappy with >> quoting a committers@ annoucement wholesale, that doesn't set a good >> precedent for that (private) list. >> > > There is a policy in ASF, > http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#mailing-list-naming-policy > > [quote] > All PMCs SHALL restrict their communication on private mailing lists > to only issues that cannot be discussed in public such as: > > Discussion of > > pre-disclosure security problems > > pre-agreement discussions with third parties that require > confidentiality > > nominees for project, project committee or Foundation membership > > personal conflicts among project personnel > [/quote] > > So I think that Infra members violate the above policy and abuse the > committers list, in the cases when the information is none of the > above. The main motivation, I suspect, is that subscription to that > list is mandatory and it is the easiest way to distribute this > information to the most of the target audience. > > I just point that committers are not the only users of ASF services. > From community building point of view, it is bad to leave other > contributors in the dark. > > This is not the first time when people ask on public dev@ lists and > one has nowhere to point to publicly. I think if such announcements > were dubbed by blog posts, it would solve the problem. > > > I could reply to OP in my own words, but I thought that doing that > will misrepresent the situation. My apologies. > > Best regards, > Konstantin Kolinko > >> Katherine Marsden wrote on Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 07:39:49 -0700: >>> On 8/11/2012 11:07 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: >>> >Konstantin Kolinko wrote on Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 20:43:56 +0400: >>> >>2 >>> >>The below is a quote from the e-mail that was sent to the committers@ >>> >>mailing list yesterday by Tony Stevenson of the Apache Infrastructure >>> >>Team. I see that you are not an ASF committer, so you probably have >>> >>not seen it. >>> >Don't quote publicly stuff sent to private lists. >>> > >>> To what extent can/should committers communicate critical >>> infrastructure updates to other contributors? Certainly it is >>> important to everyone, (most critically right now to GSoC students >>> like Siddharth who face the suggested pencils down date today). Is >>> there a public place where non-committers can check for this >>> information? I think http://monitoring.apache.org/status/ would be >>> a great place to put this type of notice or just a note at the >>> bottom of the emails that it is ok to share with affected dev groups >>> would probably be ok. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> KAthey >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Jed Smith j...@jedsmith.org
