| 1 |
On 19/07/17 19:22, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> OK, so here's the flipside of this. I'm a member of a few projects |
| 4 |
>> because I help take care of just a couple of things or maybe even just |
| 5 |
>> a gentoo-carried patch. Being a project member is necessary as I do |
| 6 |
>> want to have the commit rights on the project, but I'm -not- nor ever |
| 7 |
>> meant to be a general project member or overall maintainer or dev. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
> You left out another use case - wanting to follow mail on the project |
| 10 |
> alias. I could see cases where somebody isn't interest in a project |
| 11 |
> in general but works on something related and benefits from seeing the |
| 12 |
> emails to the alias. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
I would argue that's a better use for a mailing list than an alias then |
| 15 |
.. or at least some kind of 'observer' status in a project .. |
| 16 |
I'm not sure from my observations that being on a team alias requires |
| 17 |
you to be a project member .. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I'm really not sure what the benefits of a closed alias are, apart from |
| 20 |
keeping communications internal, which may be equally well-served being |
| 21 |
in the public domain .. unless of course it really is confined to "hi, |
| 22 |
I'm tackling bug 12345 this week, thanks,bye" type communications ... |
| 23 |
What barriers are there for transferring some key projects to having |
| 24 |
their own mailing lists? |
Archives