[arch-general] Re: Mailing list closed for 24 hours

[Nicolas Sebrecht]

The 27/09/12, Karol Blazewicz wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Nicolas Sebrecht <nsebrecht at piing.fr> 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 <z... at gmail.com>
  Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:47:11 +1000
  To: arch-general at archlinux.org
  Message-ID: <5058431F.5090707 at gmail.com>
  
  Subject: [arch-general] Open Build Service adds support for Arch Linux
  From: André Prata <b... at gmail.com>
  Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:48:36 +0100
  To: arch-general at archlinux.org
  
  Subject: [arch-general] swt - why depends bump to java-runtime>=7?
  From: "David C. Rankin" <d... at suddenlinkmail.com>
  Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:06:46 -0500
  To: Archlinux <arch-general at archlinux.org>
  Message-ID: <504E5666.3000902 at suddenlinkmail.com>
  
  Subject: [arch-general] archiso - more install guides
  From: vadim kochan <v... at gmail.com>
  Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2012 22:33:39 +0300
  To: arch-general at archlinux.org
  
  Subject: [arch-general] Requesting ownership of the bugs for AIF in the bugtracker
  From: Jeremiah Dodds <j....dodds at gmail.com>
  Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 05:21:24 -0400
  To: Arch General List <arch-general at archlinux.org>
  Message-ID: <87ehmjxy0b.fsf at friendface.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
  
  Subject: [arch-dev-public] Re: [RFC] another base cleanup
  From: Nicolas Sebrecht <n... at piing.fr>
  Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:27:58 +0200
  To: Public mailing list for Arch Linux development <arch-dev-public at archlinux.org>
  Message-ID: <20120607072758.GB2427 at 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-community

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