Re: [Debconf-team] Bug#720996: please create debconf-kids@lists.d.o
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013, Patty Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:08:09AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>
> > I also cannot see the need to have this list created as
> > private-secret-nonarchived. Some preferences specific to each of the
> > kids will be discussed, sure, but I really doubt strong
> > individual-characteric features of each kid will be part of
> > this. Stating you have a given number of kids, of a given age (or age
> > rank), or that you want allergies to be taken into consideration
> > should not require setting up another -private list. Even worse, as
> > you are requesting it not to be archived.
>
> I can absolutely understand why people want to keep the conversation on such
> a list closed. I sincerely doubt that privacy concerns and protectiveness of
> children is limited to the society in whcih I live, and hearing that this
> concern was raised by *TWO* Debian Developers who are interested in having a
> safe atmosphere for them (and their spouses) to help coordinate plans that
> may, or may not, include timetables and places to meet and such where
> children will be present, I don't think this request is off-base at all. In
> fact, I think this is by far one of the *BEST* uses of private, closed
> mailing lists. And I could probably argue that it's a better use of privacy
> and closure than other lists within the Debian mailing list structure.
This won't work. You can't really hide things and allow an open atmosphere.
And for me as a Dad of two children I really don't like the idea that the
general term of child care is discussed in private. As I already offered:
create two lists. One for the _general_ discussion of children on debconf
without a specific relation to a kid themselve and a second list/alias for
the team to discuss/coordinate the things that aren't for the public.
Everything else makes it impossible for any latecomers to participate in this
discussion.
> > official lists?
>
> Which brings us back into contention about whether DebConf is a separate
> entity from Debian, or a part of the Debian project. Back at DC10, the
> discussion was resolved that DebConf is a part of the Debian project, and
> exists to improve Debian. At the time, efforts were being made to
> coordinate funding and fund*raising* make it clear that the Debian project
> feels this way. More recently, efforts have been made to discontinue
> separation of DebConf organization from the rest of the project (namely, by
> moving mailing lists to the main Debian structure, among other minor
> changes).
>
> I don't feel a separate mailing list structure is necessary to accommodate a
> mailing list meant to be a lower-volume, more targetted (and private!) list
> for accompanying families of a DebConf attendee to help coordinate amongst
> themselves.
>
> It might mean that some people who sit out a DebConf won't see what's
> happened at that conference. I don't necessarily consider this a problem.
> It was also their choice to sit out a DebConf, and they wouldn't need to be
> coordinating at that time anyway. On the other hand, they could certainly
> join it even if they aren't attending a particular DebConf, but the traffic
> on the mailing list wouldn't likely be of interest to them that year.
I disagree. I - speaking as a father - am interested in that discussion.
>
> I just remain unconvinced what the problem of having this mailing list for
> DebConf purposes is. Are we worried about precedent set by requesting a
> private, no archive list? Are there any other private, no archive lists as
> part of the Debian listserve? If so, what reasons were they granted those
> attributes?
There are a few private lists like ctte that are non-public. In case of ctte
the reasoning is that the main intention of the list is about discussing
things that may harm other developers when such discussions happen in public.
Alex
Reply to: