Perhaps we should have a public version and a private version, both based on the same data?
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Shane Curcuru <[email protected]> wrote: > > - Should we have an "email-private" flag? That would prevent publishing > the email: attribute if the treasurer, for example, didn't want > treasurer@ published. FYI: ASF::Mail.lists(true) will tell you whether a given list has a public or private archive. I realize that may not be what you are looking for given that you want the trademark list to show up even if the archive is private. > - Should the roster: attribute be public? In some cases it's clearly > fine, like board. But would it be OK to publish it for > group/asf-treasurer and group/asf-secretary? (on second thought, it > doesn't make any sense, since the roster/group/* links are all > committer-private anyway). It can make sense... perhaps the public version link should go to the phone directory. > - We need to scrub [goals] [tasks] for a few entries that have detailed > descriptions that the authors might not have written for publication. Perhaps add <private></private> sections and have the public view remove text within these markers? - Sam Ruby
