On 8/12/11, François Boulogne <boulogne.f@gmail.com> wrote:

So make it world-readable.

I am entirely against any sort of closed private ML. Private but world-readable is a good way to maintain a good S/N while keeping us clean. On a related note, the fact that there is no public log of the TU IRC channel feels really shady. We don't even discuss "important" secrets like April Fools in the channel, and there is no reason for it to be private. The Gentoo-dev channel (where you must have voice/op to post, but anyone can lurk) is better, transparent and accountable. Closed doors suck. However, setting up a system like Gentoo's is a bit of a pain. The simplest way to go about this is for me to start sharing my #arch-tu log files. Preferably in real time. I imaging this sort of thing would need a vote first, however. Thoughts? -Kyle http://kmkeen.com

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 19:19:53 +0300 Ionut Biru <ibiru@archlinux.org> wrote:

On 08/12/2011 07:16 PM, keenerd wrote:

...

However, setting up a system like Gentoo's is a bit of a pain. The simplest way to go about this is for me to start sharing my #arch-tu log files. Preferably in real time.

I imaging this sort of thing would need a vote first, however. Thoughts?

I reject the idea.

I agree with Ionut: Not in any way. Also if there'd be another mailing list I'd strongly prefer a new mailing list in the way arch-dev works. -- Jabber: atsutane@freethoughts.de Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/ Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4

...

Ionut Biru <ibiru@archlinux.org> wrote:

...

On 08/12/2011 07:16 PM, keenerd wrote:

...

I imaging this sort of thing would need a vote first, however. Thoughts?

I reject the idea.

Bluewind talked a little bit of sense into me. There are two types of of private chatter: first is informal conversations among friends. I can see why people would want a safe non-professional place for that. IRC is great for shooting the breeze. The second amounts to internal TU discussions, which should be on the public ML anyway. When it comes to applicants, we should respect them enough to tell them why they are not ready yet. MLs are good for work, discussion, records, process, etc. TUs do not do anything critical enough to warrant a private ML. We let the devs worry about those things. I can not speak for whether the arch-dev ML should be made more open. I am not a developer and Wikileaks has not found any dirt there. Of course I would like to see more of what goes on. And I could complain about the current state of things, but then I'd just be annoying the devs. -Kyle http://kmkeen.com

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 19:56:44 +0300 Hector Martinez-Seara <hseara@gmail.com> wrote:

It is interesting, it doesn't matter which is the ambit ( Ej: politics, public institutions, ... ), but always at the end those who have the power feel the need to restrict or control the flux of information. And by experience this need increases more and more in time. No hard feelings about what you say but this might end up badly. A friend, Hector

PD: Transparency in not the same as anarchy. Might be that people don't like what is decided by those who take decisions but if it is done openly at least the people don't feel deceived.

Correct, just as Keenerd already pointed out in his answer to your mail, to make the IRC logs public is not appropriate. There are no real decisions made, sure something like whether a package should be put back to AUR when it does no longer build with current utilities and there were no new releases in quite some time are discussed there and are decided by the maintainer/the TUs (mostly these packages are orphans). But most of the conversations there have a private touch, from what was eaten for dinner to "Why I don't like $BAND/$MOVIE/$WHATEVER.". Please see the situation from this point, currently we are 24 TUs, 24 people from all around the globe who've mostly never met each other. This private channel has the social effect to form bonds of friendship between strangers, even if it is not possible for everyone to be there quite often. Clans/Guilds in the video game segment of the life/internet work in the same way to make people cooperate easier with each other. The reason I would've preferred a private mailing list instead of something like arch-dev-public are the following two: * As keenerd stated: Conversations about TU-Applicants "Hey you sponsor him/her, since when have you had contact with the applicant? Do you think he knows how much time he probably has to invest?" Stuff like that, nothing for the public, yet the Applicant has access to the mailing list archives if he becomes a TU. * The simple problem of "Hey what do you think? Is it a good idea to do this with my package?" not sent to this list but there and whoops there's a split thread like it happens often with a-d-p/a-g, when they end with more than 20 mails I easily loose focus with those. I hope this explains my opinion, yet your concerns show, that a hand full of threads(there were only 3 applications this year) are not worth disbelieve from other users. Regards, Thorsten -- Jabber: atsutane@freethoughts.de Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/ Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:20:53 +0200 Seblu <seblu@seblu.net> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 6:16 PM, keenerd <keenerd@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 8/12/11, François Boulogne <boulogne.f@gmail.com> wrote:

...

So make it world-readable.

I am entirely against any sort of closed private ML.  Private but world-readable is a good way to maintain a good S/N while keeping us clean.

On a related note, the fact that there is no public log of the TU IRC channel feels really shady.  We don't even discuss "important" secrets like April Fools in the channel, and there is no reason for it to be private.  The Gentoo-dev channel (where you must have voice/op to post, but anyone can lurk) is better, transparent and accountable. Closed doors suck.

I agree with you. But arch already have arch-dev which is not public.

That's an interesting point. What if everything we did now on arch-dev would become publicly readable.. that would mean a subgroup of the community would be aware of things such as our finances, who we are considering bringing in as a developer, what's going on with Arch legally, infrastructure related things, security issues or april fools jokes we are working on. I've always wanted to move *some* discussions from arch-dev to arch-dev-public but this is a bit more extreme. Not necessarily bad though, something to ponder. Dieter

I think that this private list will be usefull. The TUs already have a closed IRC channel, the closed list will just follow the same idea and it will make things easier for TUs in different timezones, as angvp said. I don't se any problem at all. 2011/8/12 Ray Rashif <schiv@archlinux.org>

On 12 August 2011 23:18, Florian Pritz <bluewind@xinu.at> wrote:

...

Hi,

I think it would be nice if we had a closed mailing list for TUs only (and maybe devs if they want to) so we can move more important stuff from IRC to mail because not everyone uses IRC or is online all the time.

Keep in mind that it will likely be low traffic.

Any hard feelings on that?

I have no strong opinions either way. However, I do feel there should be an equal alternative to the IRC channel , which is private.

-- GPG/PGP ID: 8AADBB10

-- Estêvão Valadão