On 6/20/12 1:42 AM, drew wrote: > On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 16:21 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:33 PM, drew <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 00:14 +0200, RGB ES wrote: >>>> 2012/6/20 drew jensen <[email protected]>: >>>>>> >>>>>> List Conduct Policy >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. >>>>>> What Happens on the list, stays on the list: >>>>>> Anything you read in the private list is by default a private PPMC >>>>>> affair and not to be spoken of, or copied to, other people who are >>> not in >>>>>> the PPMC. If you think about it, most topic threads probably >>> should >>>>>> be in >>>>>> the public lists, except choosing committers and PPMC members, and >>> a very >>>>>> few other topics. >>>>>> In fact, all email lists or email conversations have this aspect of >>>>>> privacy. Even if there are 23000 subscribers on the list, it is >>> assumed >>>>>> that privacy will be maintained and a list member's name and >>> location >>>>>> will >>>>>> not be disclosed in some public venue where personal privacy is not >>>>>> expected, >>>>>> such as published in a newspaper or some other. >>>>> >>>>> hi, >>>>> >>>>> I would disagree with that last statement completely - a public list is >>>>> just that, public, and there should be absolutely no expectation of >>>>> privacy whatsoever. To pretend otherwise is simply to lie to those who >>>>> would use the list. >>>>> >>>>> //drew >>>> >>>> Point one refers to the private lists, I think. >>>> >>>> Maybe add a "point zero" with an introduction to the mailing lists, as >>>> Ross asked? Not a detailed introduction, just to say most lists are >>>> public but one is private. Then the "code of conduct" can be separated >>>> on a "general part" that apply to all lists and a second part with >>>> additional rules (for instance, the privacy one) for the private list. >>>> >>>> Ricardo >>>> >>> >>> OK if that is really just about private lists, but the last sentence >>> read to me as if it was broader. >>> >>> Anyway - to be honest I find the whole subject rather silly. Does anyone >>> really need to be told that what happens on a private list is by >>> definition to be held in confidence? >>> >>> //drew >>> >>> >>> >> Well, Drew, I think this is why this whole discussion started. Most of us >> would think the answer to your question is "no", but, well, apparently >> there was some looser interpretation that some felt needed clarification. > > Not at all - someone violated that trust, everyone knew it was wrong, > there didn't need to be rules written for folks to know that. > > But that is just my opinion of course.
+1 and often thinking twice before answering helps also. People shouldn't simply follow some rules, more important is to understand, to listen and if necessary the ability to adapt/change the own behaviour. Write never something that conflicts with the general rules on mailing lists and never write something that you wouldn't like to read abut yourself ;-) Juergen > >> >> Anyway, Wolf, this is really good. I think this would be better posted as >> just a link on the project site, http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/, >> under the Mailing Lists link, and give more clarification on item #1 that >> this most importantly applies to private mailing lists. Drew's right that >> we don't want to mislead people to think anything else is private. >> >> I think maybe it's a bit lengthy to add to a "welcome" message to list >> subscribers. >> >> >> > >
