On 06/01/2015 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
With regard to "competitors," I just remind myself that forking is a feature and that community before code means not acting like a competitor. One should not accept the so-called competitor's terms of debate, no matter how much individuals might see and even prefer "competition."
I'll just note that "Forking is a feature" is totally unrelated to what I wrote. If Microsoft starts a campaign to advocate IIS over the Apache HTTP Server, that PMC will have to follow your route and "not accept the terms of debate" or it will have to give an answer, and part of it may have to be discussed confidentially (even the Foundation Press Releases are not discussed in public before they are issued; in the real world... this happens).
The discussion that followed seems to clearly show that this stays undecided. So, coming back to the maturity model, I think that we can recommend a wise usage of the private list, but not necessarily restrict it to votes and security. Trademark violations for example surely belong there, and more can belong there depending on the project and on its public image.
A note to reassure those who oppose it: I've never seen marketing strategy discussions on the private lists I'm subscribed to. I'm definitely not a marketing-oriented person, but I don't see marketing as inherently evil either.
Regards, Andrea.
