[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Making -devel discussions more viable (was: switching from exim to postfix)

On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 01:23:29PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> 3) public, but contributors-only list
> This has been implemented by other FOSS projects. A notable example is
> Ubuntu who have a split between ubuntu-devel (project members only +
> whitelisting) and ubuntu-devel-discuss (free for all). I've never asked,
> but I have always suspected that they've done so in an attempt to
> improve over the experience of debian-devel participants.
> The obvious drawback of this "solution" is that non-contributors will
> need someone to vouch for them to be whitelisted.

How about a "automated" contributors-only list.

To post to debian-devel, one would have to either submit a patch to a
bug, close a rt ticket, commit to one of the scm.debian.org or upload a
package to debian.

You include a url to that in the footer of the mail, and the mailing
list checks that it was really your change and it was done recently.
The check does not need to be perfect, if someone tries to cheat the
check we just ban the user for a while.

Non-contributors out of blue can still engage in the discussion, they
just need to contribute something first :) We enough "easy" jobs from
manpage writing to translations that the rule would not prevent
anyone who wants help debian to voicing their opinion. One just needs
to get out of their email client and actually do something useful for
a change.

It could also lessen the instant-flame-reply culture, as you would have
to do something else before replying - probably causing you to cool
down and articulate a better answer. 

Before you scream "that's a technical solution to social problem", I
find it rather an economical solution to a social problem. Debian has
something people want (to voice the opinion) and Debian needs something
they can do (fix bugs). The solution brings them together.


For example, this mail would have been bought to you by the courtesy of:

Reply to: