Re: Mailing list cleanup proposal

<quote who="Havoc Pennington">

> On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 12:50:16AM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: 
> > My point is, do we want to continue with the hackers/private configuration
> > oddness, or simplify and discard the confusing lists? (On top of that, the
> > policy for gnome-hackers is non-existent, so it's extra painful to have all
> > this on top.)

[ snip gnome-private history ;) ]

> Still, in the case of press releases, it has allowed some interesting news
> to go more public than "board members only" a bit sooner than it otherwise
> would have. In those cases it kept the broader community more informed.
> Also, the flames on there were perhaps better off posted than fumed about
> quietly, though who knows.

So, you think we should do without gnome-private? I think it's pretty useful
despite the warts, but like hackers, it would be good if there was a known
policy, and perhaps even a list of subscribers (with munged addresses) on
the web.

I probably didn't explain the 'configuration oddness' thing very well. We
have gnome-hackers, gnome-hackers-posters, gnome-hackers-readonly,
gnome-private, gnome-private-members, gnome-private-posters. It's a bit of a
mess, even though I understand why it was done originally. What spooks me is
that we even have a gnome-love-posters list too! Argh!

(Oh, note that the stuff I've reviewed is only taken from what's public.
There are quite a few silly private lists too that should just die.)

- Jeff

   "I came for the quality, but I stayed for the freedom." - Sean Neakums   

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]