Jim Popovitch via Mailman-Users writes: > Again with the "Jim's team". Those other guys, that other group, them > folks.... That's nauseating to hear from you Stephen.
I use the word "team" to describe people who work together closely to achieve common goals. That's just English. The team I'm on, the GNU Mailman Project whose core members control access to Mailman resources ranging from mailing list moderation to GSoC slots, has the goal of developing, maintaining and promoting Mailman 3, while winding down Mailman 2 gracefully. Mark's "gatekeeping" is a deliberate strategy to that end that is an economical use of our resources. Until you spoke up, there wasn't really an alternative anyway given Mark's expressed desire to EOL his support of Mailman 2. You have a different goal, maintaining, promoting, and developing Mailman 2. As far as I know, you have no interest in doing the same for Mailman 3 at this time. I believe that is also true of others who have expressed interest in your proposal. I don't see how you can question that these are different teams. We don't need to work together and we won't work together on 99% of what either team does. I do not understand why you take insult at references to this simple fact, and spew abuse in return. This abuse is quite different from getting upset at the GNU Mailman Project's policy of deprecating Mailman 2. That imposes real costs on you. I understand why that frustrates you. I understand why you want to share in our resources and our reputation that we built up and we maintain, rather than fork a new project. And you know what? Even though your goal of promoting Mailman 2 is apparently opposed to our goal of winding down Mailman 2, it presents a great opportunity to do it with grace. I understand and to some extent agree with Brian's concerns about technical debt and irresponsible providers. But I don't really see how a shoot-the-prisoner approach to Mailman 2 EOL addresses the technical debt and provider issues given the switching costs that Mailman 2 users still face. So I think it would benefit Mailman 2 users in the community to take up a friendly offer to maintain Mailman 2, and not really harm our goals. Problem is, you are not friendly. You are hostile and abusive, and I don't understand why. Ball's in your court, Jim. > Stephen, just who do you think did the DMARC research and work in > MM2? What's your point? Again, you seem to have taken offense, but I'm not sure why. The only contribution I deprecated was my own, and I'm baffled at the connection to who did DMARC work. To answer your question, though, Franck Martin of LinkedIn and DMARC contributed the original from_is_list patch. I contributed an alternative, RFC-conforming wrapper approach (that wasn't useful because of Apple Mail's mishandling message/rfc-822 parts), and liaised with the DMARC Consortium. You did something that I forget exactly, IIRC related to the DNS fiddling that enabled the mitigations only on p=reject domains, which made from_is_list a lot more palatable. Mark did the integration of about 2 dozen patches, testing, much of the documentation, and cut several releases specifically to ensure that the users got the best DMARC handling we could offer right away. Other people contributed various improvements that I don't recall offhand, I think the above are the main ones though. And we owe a debt to a few PyPI packages. ------------------------------------------------------ Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/
