The 27/09/12, Karol Blazewicz wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
The 27/09/12, Tobias Frilling wrote:
The problem is not at the general mailing list but at the dev mailing
list side.
archlinux-dev is for contributors and as long somebody is just a user
he should have read-only access.
You pretend that giving access because of the status is better. I claim
it's wrong and it's more benefic for everybody to split mailing lists
in terms of expected _topics_.
Unless we have a way (and a will) of
banning people from that list, there is nothing we can do to prevent
flames there, if we open it up.
I understand you might be afraid. This just won't happen because members
of the dev mailing list are talking about code and maintenance jobs in
concrete terms.
Look at the Gentoo dev mailing list. It's fully open. The community is
_way_ wider than Arch's one and things are going right.
There won't be flames unless you clearly concede that some topics are
_exposed_ to flames. If so, this is because topics discussed in the dev
mailing list are not as technical as they are supposed to and some of
the ones who make the decisions don't always rely on technical facts.
The discussion on archlinux-dev is often based on RFCs made by some
dev and you can comment on it on arch-general just fine.
So, you admit that constructive topics are going to be splitted between
mailing lists only because of the policy relying on status. Then you
should also admit:
* each time a thread is broken over mailing lists, the "out-going"
threads lose touch with contributors not subscribed to the users
mailing list;
* not official Arch members have more pain to reach official
contributors directly in a public way (members of the dev mailing list
are not supposed to be subscribed to the users mailing list and
mailing lists are not nested);
* interesting contributions are lost because the policy is a
discouraging frein to people who'd like to involve themselve a bit
more into the maintenance job;
* people are not much motivated to contribute from time to time because
of the status wall.
Can you give some examples of discussions you would see moving to archlinux-dev?
Sure.
Subject: [arch-general] Modifying archiso
From: Robbie Smith
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:47:11 +1000
To: arch-general@archlinux.org
Message-ID: <5058431F.5090707@gmail.com>
Subject: [arch-general] Open Build Service adds support for Arch Linux
From: André Prata
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:48:36 +0100
To: arch-general@archlinux.org
Subject: [arch-general] swt - why depends bump to java-runtime>=7?
From: "David C. Rankin"
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:06:46 -0500
To: Archlinux
Message-ID: <504E5666.3000902@suddenlinkmail.com>
Subject: [arch-general] archiso - more install guides
From: vadim kochan
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2012 22:33:39 +0300
To: arch-general@archlinux.org
Subject: [arch-general] Requesting ownership of the bugs for AIF in the bugtracker
From: Jeremiah Dodds
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 05:21:24 -0400
To: Arch General List
Message-ID: <87ehmjxy0b.fsf@friendface.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
Subject: [arch-dev-public] Re: [RFC] another base cleanup
From: Nicolas Sebrecht
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:27:58 +0200
To: Public mailing list for Arch Linux development
Message-ID: <20120607072758.GB2427@nicolas-desktop>
These are only samples. I can't take the samples of topic not even
written
Here is a good article:
http://blog.cyberborean.org/2006/03/03/open-source-best-practices-part-i-com...
Take this excerpt
" Don’t let the people feel they do something personally for you – this
is ultimately not the case since you’ve published your code. Let them
feel this is their project as well as it is yours — and this is really
so. Don’t turn your authority as an initial developer and project
maintainer into dictation. Remember Tao: “If you want to lead other
people, you must put their interest ahead of your own”. "
and apply the argument for the mailing lists instead of the code only.
My point is that the dev mailing list should be the *main* discussion
forum of the community.
The users mailing list should not be turned into a
"This is the place where people without authority are welcome to
exchange with other non-authority people"
.
Oh, and for the arch-general mailing list we should even add
"Even if you can't talk directly with authoritative members and have
contructive discussions with them you MUST follow strict policy and
technical power users discussions. If not the authoritative members
might and WILL close your mailing list for some time for punishment"
.
--
Nicolas Sebrecht