Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 22:38 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Ned Ludd wrote:
> > I would be in favor of a  gentoo-dev-announce list if it allowed me
> > to unsubscribe from this list.
>
> Sure, if you want to just accept any decisions rather than participate
> in making them. The -dev-announce list should be for finalized
> decisions. It should be too late to dispute them once they're sent to it.
>
> For important discussions, it may be worth announcing that they're
> starting -- e.g., for a GLEP -- so people could then be sure to pay
> attention to that discussion on -dev.

At one point, a long time ago, a few of us had actually started
discussing a mailing list reorganization.  It somewhat died out simply
because we didn't keep up with it.  However, it went something like
this:

- Create a new list ("gentoo-core-announce" ?)
Reading: dev-only
Posting: dev-only, reply-to set to gentoo-core
This is the reference list of things (policy, decisions and discussions
in progress) all developers must know about.

- Keep -core and -dev, as non-required reading

- Confirm the role of "gentoo-announce" as the official reference list
of things all users must know about (especially difficult upgrades just
before they reach stable). Posting is moderated.



Now, do we really need it to be -core-announce?  Not really.  In fact,
at one point we'd come up with both a -core-announce and a
-dev-announce, with -core-announce being for more sensitive information.
Some other ideas that were tossed about was changing "gentoo-announce"
into "gentoo-security-announce" (since it is currently GLSA-only,
really) with reply-to set to gentoo-security and create a
"gentoo-user-announce" with reply-to set to gentoo-user, where we would
put more information, such as the information that would be given via
the portage tree in GLEP42.  However, it was also brought up that anyone
interested in security is probably also interested in things that might
break their system (heh) so instead of splitting it to two lists, it
would remain a single list.

As you can guess, we never got around to actually writing up a GLEP for
this or anything.  We didn't reach any kind of impasse, we just quit
working on it.

I just thought I would pass this along so people know what was discussed
previously and would also like to apologize for being one of the
slackers who let this die a while back without so much as sending it to
the list for discussion.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux