Makes sense. Thanks. G
On Tuesday, March 10, 2009, at 10:07AM, "Martijn Dashorst" <martijn.dasho...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Greg Brown <gkbr...@mac.com> wrote: >>>1. First of all, this is not a "private" issue and can be discussed in the >>>open. > >> OK - it seemed more like an infrastructure issue than a dev issue, so I >> thought private was a better place for it. But I will use dev in the future. > >Even infrastructure issues other than sensitive information >(passwords, keys, procedures, configurations, ...) are not typically >sent to private: discussing new lists, new hardware, etc can be done >in the open (unless there's a private concern, such as a sponsor that >needs to be kept private until the whole deal is completed) > >Things for private@: > > - discussing people > - discussing board/security issues > >In my projects we send the board reports to the private list, discuss >new committers, and personal things that are more private (birthdays, >births, illness, things that are part of our private lives – the >wicket community is sort of a bunch of friends, though several of us >never actually met). > >Other things, like voting on a release, or a new feature go to the dev >list. Sometimes an item that could result in a heated discussion on >our public lists is discussed first in private, and then brought to a >grander audience, but those things are rare. > >Rule of thumb: > - when it involves people -> private@ > - when it involves !people -> dev@ > >Martijn > >
