Good idea, Phil

Separating out [VOTE] and maybe even [DISCUSS] threads related to [VOTE]s 
and/or lazy consensus should be possible.  I will look into that as a 
refinement in future reports.  (It will also be helpful if the practices for 
tagging mail threads are followed consistently.)

It should be pretty easy to distinguish posts that are in scope for a PMC and 
those that are not, without revealing anything posted with an expectation of 


I have no means to produce comparisons with other projects and it is out of 
scope for me here.  Maybe other projects might undertake it just to satisfy 
themselves that their activity is as confined as it is thought to be.

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Steitz [] 
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 09:21
Subject: Re: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July

On 8/29/15 8:39 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> I'd love to see a comparison with a half dozen other projects.

[ ... ] But
committer / PMC votes, security issues and occasional random legal
or must-be-private people-related things pop up and cause traffic
spikes when they do.  So I would not draw conclusions or do
comparisons based on message counts.  Better to compare what is
actually being discussed.

[ ... ]

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

Reply via email to