I also would be curious to see an example of committership votes conducted on a public dev@ list. I suspect (hope) that in a healthy community, this would have an effect of forcing those discussions to become more civil and constructive. Maybe I'm naive to think this though. :-)
I can't think of any other specific topics that I'd like to see assigned to the private@ list by policy. The more we push to the public dev@ list, the better. --Chris Nauroth On 9/19/15, 10:51 PM, "Nick Dimiduk" <[email protected]> wrote: >I'd be curious for an example community who handles discussions re: new >committers and PMC roles on the dev list. From what I've seen on other >projects, those conversations benefit from the level of discretion >afforded >by having them on the private list. > >On Saturday, September 19, 2015, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi folks! >> >> We need to decide which topics of conversation require being limited to >>the >> PMC on private@yetus. >> >> * security vulnerability reports and handling (per foundation policy >>since >> we don't have security@) >> >> * I'd like any branding requests (like trademark use by third parties) >>to >> go to dev@ unless the sender needs special confidentiality >> >> * discussion and votes on new committers and PMC roles often go to >>private, >> but need not. If folks are interested, I can look for an example >>community >> that does this in public. >> >> What do folks think about the above? In particular, are there folks not >> currently on the PMC that can think of topics they'd like to >>participate in >> that might typically and up on private@? >> >> -- >> Sean >>
