1 |
Richard Freeman <rich@××××××××××××××.net> posted |
2 |
46A4133A.4030007@××××××××××××××.net, excerpted below, on Sun, 22 Jul 2007 |
3 |
22:32:26 -0400: |
4 |
|
5 |
> Jan Kundrát wrote: |
6 |
>> Ryan Hill wrote: |
7 |
>>> zombieswift/new devs -project |
8 |
>>> council/trustee nominations -project |
9 |
>> |
10 |
>> Then it's worth cross-posting -core or -dev-announce or similar. I |
11 |
>> thought that goal of -project was to keep devs away from poisonous |
12 |
>> content without impairing their Gentoo-awareness. |
13 |
>> |
14 |
> I thought the goal was more to separate technical and non-technical |
15 |
> content - as most of the heavy-reply emails on -dev were non-technical |
16 |
> in nature. The politics/etc could go on -project. |
17 |
|
18 |
[snip] |
19 |
|
20 |
> If anything of any importance at all gets discussed on -dev, then all |
21 |
> the non-technical stuff will end up on -dev as well and nothing will be |
22 |
> accomplished by having the new list. Developers who are interested in |
23 |
> participating in politics (devrel, CoC debates, user-relation |
24 |
> discussions, etc) should subscribe to -project. |
25 |
|
26 |
The idea is this. For non-tech posts, X-post the /first/ post, the |
27 |
announcement of the idea (for new devs, nominations, etc, to both dev and |
28 |
dev-announce), so those only paying attention to dev know about it. Set |
29 |
the followup to project (not dev). Those who wish to discuss it, the |
30 |
discussion goes to project. |
31 |
|
32 |
If/when a decision is made, the announcement of the decision is made to |
33 |
dev-announce and dev, again xposted and fup2 set to project. |
34 |
|
35 |
For most non-technical stuff then, dev will normally get two posts, the |
36 |
initial idea announcement, and the decision announcement if one is made. |
37 |
Dev-announce will get one, the final decision. |
38 |
|
39 |
Foundation and council nominations are a bit strange in this regard, |
40 |
since generally, the thread starter is an announcement, but arguably so |
41 |
are the nominations and accept/reject notices. This one's tough, but I'd |
42 |
call it an exception. The best idea I can come up with here is initial |
43 |
nominations open announcement to dev-announce, xposted to dev, with fup2 |
44 |
set to dev (not project, the single non-tech exception). That will keep |
45 |
dev-announce noise really low, while allowing the nominations and accept/ |
46 |
reject on dev, one step above where they'd normally be because they are |
47 |
announcements, but not on announce, to keep the noise there lower. In |
48 |
keeping with this exception, the original nominations open announcement |
49 |
should say those and acceptance/rejection notices are welcome on dev, but |
50 |
that any discussion thereof should be on project only. |
51 |
|
52 |
Then an elections official appointed to the job should produce a summary |
53 |
a few days before nominations close with nominations to date, and again |
54 |
as nominations close and elections begin. This summary should go to dev- |
55 |
announce, xposted and fup2 set to dev for more nominations for the pre- |
56 |
close announcement, and to project for the nominations close, elections |
57 |
begin, announcement. |
58 |
|
59 |
So for nominations, there'd be three posts to dev announce instead of |
60 |
two, the opening announcement, the pre-close summary, and the final |
61 |
summary, marking the opening of elections. |
62 |
|
63 |
> One thing I want to caution is a potentially-dangerous mindset that a |
64 |
> flame is any post that one personally disagrees with - or which a |
65 |
> majority of developers disagree with. Flames are more about attitude |
66 |
> and intent - not so much about viewpoint. [snip] |
67 |
|
68 |
++ |
69 |
|
70 |
-- |
71 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
72 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
73 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
74 |
|
75 |
-- |
76 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |