[csw-maintainers] ITP: opencsw-policy

[Peter FELECAN]

"Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski" <maciej at opencsw.org> writes:

> No dia 1 de Janeiro de 2011 11:05, Peter FELECAN
> <pfelecan at opencsw.org> escreveu:
>> The policies has the maintainers as the sole public. If somebody is
>> interested by these discussion s/he can subscribe.
>
> Would it mean that once I'm subscribed, I can read all the archives?
> We don't have that at the moment, AFAIK.

If you wish to have a public list just for archival purposes then we
certainly lack a feature. If I'm not mistaken, we use mailserv which
offer this exact feature. Maybe Ishan can give us the status about that?

>> The user is a
>> fallacious public brought up only when cornered.
>>
>> Why do you think that Debian, among others, has private discussion lists?
>>
>>>> I'd say that creating the new mailing list should happen when we
>>>> notice concrete problems with existing discussions and agree that a
>>>> private list would solve them.
>>>
>>> Also agreed.  If the policy specific volume on maintainers@ becomes a
>>> significant proportion, we could split it out at a later time.
>>
>> I'm worried by the noise that can drown directly or indirectly policy
>> discussion as happened so many time in the past.
>
> When you worry about noise, do you mean noise in the policy-related
> thread or in other threads?  If it's about other threads, using an
> e-mail client which supports threads solves that problem.  If you
> worry about noise in the same thread, you're facing a social /
> behavioral problem, and technical means are not likely to solve it.
> If there's a person making distracting comments in the thread, the
> right response is to talk to them and make them behave better.

Both noises are worrying for me.

Having isolation serve many purposes that I evoked. Even a threads aware
mail client, cannot select easily the subjects if there is no good
marking. Only those interested in the subject of policies
need to read and we don't pollute the other lists. Finally, we have
everything about policies in one place vs. today when we have
discussions on maintainers and submit lists.

> I'm not saying that there is no place for private discussions, but I'm
> not convinced that it makes sense to have a private one for policy
> related discussions.  Policy decisions affect the largest group of
> people: maintainers and users.  It's important that all affected
> parties have read access to these discussions, much the same way in
> which the public has access to the parliament debates, both live on TV
> and later on in transcripts.

Again: I don't see why are the users interested in policies
discussion. They are only interested in the result which will be
available on line and off line. The policies affect overwhelmingly the
maintenance activities and very slightly the usage.

Anyhow, there is a need for a private list of some kind.
-- 
Peter