On Jul 22, 2011, at 10:21 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes: > >> On Jul 22, 2011, at 1:59 AM, Graham Percival wrote: >> >>> ** Private list membership? >>> >>> If we want to pursue a private mailing list, rather than “whoever >>> Graham thinks/remembers to cc”, then the obvious question is “who >>> should be on it?”. >>> >>> My initial thought is to keep it small – say, 5 people. Other than >>> me, Han-Wen, and Jan, I have no firm ideas about who else. >>> >>> The list of members should be public. >> >> I actually like the solution "whoever Graham thinks/remembers to cc." >> If someone wants to have a private discussion about accordion symbols >> versus vertical spacing, those are two different lists of people that >> would bring the most useful contributions (with a bit of overlap). >> >> Otherwise, I don't mind private lists at all (be they ad hoc or >> recurrent) - it is an extension of free speech and free assembly, both >> of which seem to be in keeping with the idea of "free" software. > > When there is a fixed mailing list/alias, members of that list are not > free to decide who to communicate with. >
I disagree - members of that list are free to choose to subscribe subject to the list and therefore its terms. The freedom to selectively desabjugate one's freedoms is a freedom. > Now of course, if people choose to communicate in a private circle of > their choosing, there is nothing wrong with that. And if there is a > Lilypond meeting somewhere, its circle of members is established (and on > multiple meetings, "round up the usual suspects" applies). But that is > local, non-organized, non-formal. > Even when it is formal, it is a choice. I receive the lilypond-devel e-mails because I chose to. > I should certainly think that there are things one can discuss more > easily in a limited circle. But establishing a mailing list like that, > however, means splitting the user community into a group one can and > will discuss anything with, and a group that will never be consulted > when there is at least one person in the entire public not fit for the > respective discussion. > >> So long as the entirety of the git repo remains cloneable, modifiable, >> and resetable, I'm happy. > > If there were plans to make this otherwise, you would not hear about > them until it is too late. The presence or absence of a list would have no impact on this. I think that putting limits on who talks to who and in what conditions is not a fruitful debate. If Bertrand and I decide to establish a private LilyPond list that no-one but use two uses, GOP-PROP 6 will have no bearing on what we do. The sole issue of trust is one of representation, and I think that Graham represents the project very well and can decide who to pass certain discussions onto. Cheers, MS _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
