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

Re: Making -devel discussions more viable

Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi> writes:

> 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.

Require that for *every* post to debian-devel? That seems a tiiiny bit
excessive. As good as it might be to increase contributions, I'm afraid
this would have the opposite effect: decrease the posts to the list,
while not gaining anything.

It also rules out contributions done on this very list, which - despite
the tone of some recent threads - is not without precedent.

On the other hand, if I can participate in a thread by pre-seeding my
bucket of contributions, that might work.

And just for the heck of it, this mail, and any other mail in the
thread would have been made possible by the following things:

Nevertheless, if we adopt something like this - which I hope we don't
have to -, another problem arises: how recent the contributions must be?
Does opening bugs count? What if the contribution would be answering a
question on the list? What if upstream wants to chime in to a discussion
about his software on devel?

Truth be told, a moderated debian-devel@ would make me very, very sad,
no matter how the moderation would work. There must be a less forceful


Reply to: