| 1 |
On Friday 13 July 2007 01:17, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:43:59 -0700 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> "Chrissy Fullam" <musikc@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > An additional method discussed was to have all non-dev emails on |
| 6 |
> > a timeout, pick a number of hours, and then the email if not |
| 7 |
> > moderated would be released. (non-dev sends his email, time period |
| 8 |
> > expires and no one booted it, so the email rolls through) |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> For what it's worth, _IF_ this proposal goes through I'd strongly prefer |
| 11 |
> that mode of operation, so that moderation can't become a limiting |
| 12 |
> factor. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Marius |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> PS: Am I the only one who missed both reminders for the meeting? |
| 17 |
No, I missed them and the meeting as well:-( |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Before I recently joined the council I was against implementing the Proctors |
| 20 |
but now that we they apparently have been disbanded I think we're better off |
| 21 |
with an open -dev than some form of moderation. Flamefest contributors should |
| 22 |
be temporarily blacklisted. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
We can have a -dev-announce or -dev-info for devs that don't want to wade |
| 25 |
through all the mails here on -dev. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
We still need -core for private communications and need input on -dev from |
| 28 |
non-devs. As a very busy person I wouldn't want the extra burden of |
| 29 |
moderating emails to -dev. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
/me smacks himself for missing the meeting |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen |
| 35 |
Gentoo Linux Security Team |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives