Re: We can halve volume by not allowing nondevelopers to post
In article <[🔎] 19990319172042.C7369@cibalia.gkvk.hr> you write:
>On Fri, Mar 19, 1999 at 10:54:45AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
>> Would it be possible for the list software to take pgp signed
>> subscriptions? That way we can have developers able to sub and unsub
>> at will, and also non-signed subs can be recv only (no posting).
>
>It'd be nice if lists software could allow non-posters (non-developers)
>to post if their message subject starts with 'Intent to package:',
>and that they have 'Followup-to: poster' added automattically, plus
>that the messages with subject 'Re: Intent to package:' are banned.
As a non-developer, I have seen a number of posts from non-developers
that I consider to be useful (eg reported problems in glibc 2.1).
IMHO, the assumption that "posts from non-developers should be banned
unless they are intent to package" is wrong.
For instance, I have asked questions on this list concerning development
of my diskless NFS-root package. Please correct me if you disagree, but
I believe that such posts are on-topic in this mailing list, because
I plan on officially contributing my package to Debian as soon as my
maintainers application has been processed (which may take a while...).
I have already made nofficial copies available for download.
I think somebody really ought count things like (I don't consider the
bandwidth to be a big problem for myself, otherwise I would do it):
- how many "off-topic" postings are from developers?
- how many "off-topic" postings are from non-developers?
- how many developers post "off-topic" postings?
- how many non-developers post "off-topic" postings?
- how many "on-topic" postings are from non-developers?
- how many non-developers post "on-topic" postings?
I consider it an important feature of Debian's development model
that anyone can contribute to important discussions about Debian's
future.
Reply to: