On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Michael Meeks <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dennis & list, > > On Fri, 2011-10-21 at 08:11 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: >> It is not something that can be done unilaterally here on the AOOo podling. >> Do you propose that this be discussed at securityteam@ OO.o? It would >> seem that is where consensus is required. > > Last I checked only a few from TDF's security group are on that list; > so it doesn't seem an ideal forum either. Lets just CC our security team > as I've done. > > I am mildly amused by the convenient deployment of the argument type: > "we have always done it this way" from a project undergoing such a lot > of (in many ways positive) changes. Combine this with a world of > extraordinary possibilities such as: mail forwarding and the "mail > address is well known" bites the dust. There were many projects and > people I used to admire in the ASF, but claiming it is neutral in > today's world is not sensible. > > I would like to see, and think it is reasonable to ask for: > > 1. a neutral domain / list name > 2. a comprehensive set of moderators / admins cf. previous > 3. neutral hosting > > It seems vs. the present that the ASF guys are suggesting to compromise > on only one of these points (2.) ie. having two Apache supporters (Rob + > Dennis) as moderators, and one TDF guy (me or Caolan): is that right ? >
If you want another TDF moderator then please propose a name on the securityteam list. I don't see a problem with that. > At a big stretch, assuming there is no heavy-governance-petting > anywhere near it, I could cope with not having 3. ie. Apache hosting it > - after all, that is rather invisible [ but I personally loathe reply-to > mangling - I don't believe we would want that pushed onto us ]. > > So - where do we go from there ? it looks to me like no compromise is > possible (for some definitions of compromise). We could create two > 'neutral' mailing lists one at each side, with cross subscriptions to > our own security lists - but it all seems a bit pointless. > If you recall, I was originally arguing for having only ooo-security and not having a securityteam list at all. So from my perspective, the continuation of [email protected] is the compromise. Of course, you can continue to bring up new demands and expectations , and try to make it appear that this was never a compromise and that the only fair-minded thing would be to move closer to your new position. But obviously I could do the same thing. So I suggest we all show some good will, for the benefit of the users, and give it a try at working together on [email protected]. In the end neutrality does not come from a domain name or an IP address or a host. It comes from fairness and transparency. I think you can be fair on [email protected], and I hope you think the same of me. So let's give it a try. OK? -Rob > Regards, > > Michael. > > -- > [email protected] <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot > >
