On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Valentin Villenave <valen...@villenave.net>wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 1:18 AM, Joe Neeman <joenee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > What sort of signs would you find reassuring? > > Greetings Joe, > Well, your answer is one, for starters :) > > What I meant by "reassuring signs" is pretty much any reactions from > the development team acknowledging that there might be an issue (or > something that might be perceived as such) with the way things have > been going so far. More specifically, I was referring to the few > questions I raised and suggestions I made earlier. > > > I'm a member of -hackers. I've > > probably sent two emails to the list in the four or so years that I've > been > > a member. Nevertheless, I think it's useful to have around. For one > thing, > > the traffic is so low that I actually *read* the emails on it, whereas I > > often miss emails to -devel unless someone CCs me. > > Good point. > That would apply to any other low-traffic mailing-list, though (and > doesn't explain why the archives, no matter how old, need to be > private). > If the archives were public, it might deter people from speaking frankly. Obviously, everyone knows by now that we've had a thread discussing David; had there been public archives (or a plan to make them public in the future), that conversation would have probably gone off-list. Which defeats the purpose of having such a list in the first place. > I don't have any > particularly strong opinions about what the list policies should be, but I > am in favor of keeping it. Again, I do not strongly object against keeping it either. > > So, a temporary list of -hackers members would include Han-Wen, Jan, > Graham, (possibly Mats?), John, Reinhold, yourself... and counting > (this is me "playing journalist", as Graham would say). > I doubt anyone objects to having a public list of the -hackers members. If we do create such a list, it's probably more efficient just to get a list from the list administrator rather than sleuthing around. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the impression that this list > is but a thing from the past. It would explain why old-time "senior > developers", as Graham calls them, are still members, but not "new" > developers who have _only_ been around for less than, what? three > years? > That sounds about right. Still, there's some kind of a paradox: what you guys are telling us is > basically "nobody really uses this mailing list"... "but let's keep it > anyway". (Which is exactly what I was already told several years ago.) > > Anyway, if you find it "useful", then by all means do keep it. But it > would be a pity to keep it "just in case", regardless of what it, for > all intents and purposes, may make the LilyPond project look like from > where regular contributors are standing. (Again, I'm speaking for > myself and aren't assuming that my point of view is shared by anyone > else.) > Do you really think that having a private mailing list damages the project? That is, assuming that we are open about its existence/purpose/whatever? Cheers, Joe
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
