FWIW, OOo had a policy like ASF's, but I and others honoured exceptions, and they were exceptions. They were infrequent, and we made it clear that expunging from the OOo lists was not likely to be a panacea, that once Pandora's uhm, can, had been opened, the worms were free to wriggle where they willed.
Louis On 30 January 2012 18:19, TJ Frazier <[email protected]> wrote: > Ross, > I am not taking this personally, but I /am/ replying personally, below. > > > On 1/30/2012 15:57, Ross Gardler wrote: >> >> On 30 January 2012 19:45, TJ Frazier<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 1/30/2012 14:22, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: >> >> >> ... >> >>>>> What specific things are being asked of you? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> To remove a specific email message posted to a public list >>>> (documentation) by mistake. >>> >>> >>> >>> If the message is on one of the two documentation ML's (author or dev >>> @doc.oo.o) I can remove it, or at least the SYMPA page says I can. >>> You or the user can mail me at [email protected], or bring the >>> matter >>> to this list (ooo-dev). I need sender and date. >> >> >> The ASF has a policy of *not* removing mails in the majority of cases. >> It simply is not possible to do so since our mailing lists are >> archived all over the place. See >> http://www.apache.org/foundation/public-archives.html >> > Most organizations, like most individuals, have a few suboptimal policies > (calling them "damn-fool" would be rude, so I won't). The ASF is no > exception, and this policy is one of them. > > AFAICS, the rationales for the policy are: > > (1) "Can't do it perfectly." True, but this is the age-old conflict between > "the good vs. the best", or "improvement vs. perfection". I assert that > there is no overarching answer to these, hence the decisions must be made at > a lower level. In this general case, I lean strongly toward "improvement". > It is the friendly thing to do, and we build community one friend at a time. > (2) "Publisher of record." Let's not get too full of ourselves, here. If a > post makes a point in a discussion and prompts replies, or otherwise meets > some criterion of "general importance", I would argue to keep it. If not, > and if the user wants it gone, it's toast. > (3) "Too much work." (a) Frequency: I have moderated two (admittedly not > very active) lists for about 6 months. This is the first such request I have > received. YMMV. (b) Level of effort: This user provided a direct link to the > archived message. It took me one click to get there, maybe 10 seconds to > confirm that this was the information in question, one click to delete it, > and a third click to close the browser. This might be harder under ezmlm, > but that's something for ezmlm moderators to take up with Infra. > (4) "The user should have known better." True, but don't be snide. > > Interestingly enough, despite my rant, my action (I have deleted the post) > seems to fall within policy! > > /tj/ > > >> ... >> >>>>> Why aren't they being brought to the list (either details, or at least >>>>> an >>>>> overview of what this work is about)? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Because the person wanting the removal, I presume, did not know about >>>> the new changes. I have no problem explaining things--have--but I'm >>>> simply laying out the facts. >>>>> >>>>> >> >> The point is that you are not a contact point for the AOO project, >> this list is. If you, as a single individual, choose to act on >> requests like these and others that you frequently claim are coming >> your way you will quickly run out of time or you will fail to address >> the requests. Please share everything here (or on the private lists if >> absolutely necessary). >> >> Personally I would rather see you spending time addressing the issue >> with SPI funds since you are the named individual dealing with the SPI >> (or alternatively indicating that you do not intend to do so, thereby >> making way for someone else to do it). >> >> Ross >> >> > >
