Ben Walton <[email protected]> writes: > Excerpts from Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski's message of Fri Dec 31 15:32:08 > -0500 2010: > >> mouth when talking in private. Another issue: having public >> archives of policy discussions might be important for newcomers, who >> might want to read discussions behind policy decisions. Otherwise >> you might see the same questions raised over and over again, or you >> would have to document all of them. > > Agreed. +1 for public discussion of policy. There is no need to keep > this behind closed doors. If the 'public' cares enough about a > specific issue being discussed, it might even encourage audience > participation, which wouldn't be bad, I don't think...we often wonder > what the users are doing, so if we have a chance to hear from them > about things we're planning that will affect them, this is a good > thing!
The policies has the maintainers as the sole public. If somebody is interested by these discussion s/he can subscribe. The user is a fallacious public brought up only when cornered. Why do you think that Debian, among others, has private discussion lists? >> I'd say that creating the new mailing list should happen when we >> notice concrete problems with existing discussions and agree that a >> private list would solve them. > > Also agreed. If the policy specific volume on maintainers@ becomes a > significant proportion, we could split it out at a later time. I'm worried by the noise that can drown directly or indirectly policy discussion as happened so many time in the past. -- Peter _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
