Re: Thinking about (mis)use of -private
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 03:37:12PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> I have the impression that some geek mass media also monitor d-d-a as an
> unofficial source of (taken as) Debian press releases, so I'd be a bit
> cautious with that, not only DDs are reading d-d-a.
So what you're saying is that d-d-a is public, and therefore not
private? Well, yeah. I thought that was the point. People are
abusing d-private to try to reach developers with matters that aren't
or shouldn't be private. If it's a matter that *should* be private,
then, by all means, use -private. But such matters seem to be quite
rare (aside from vacation notices). If a matter is suitable for
public discussion, then it's inherently suitable for the "geek mass
media", which happens to be part of the public.
> Also, there's a difference between 'Every DD should/must read this' and
> 'I'd like to reach every DD'. We want DDs to read d-d-a with high
> priority (even the less active ones), so I suggest only important be
> posted there.
That's a better argument, but I think the point is, not every
developer *wants* to be reached, unless it's a matter of sufficient
importance to justify using d-d-a. People who would merely "like to
reach every DD" should either decide that what they're saying is
important enough to justify using d-d-a, or should give up on their
over-ambitious goals if what they're saying isn't important enough.
Why *should* we create a way to shove trivia at every DD, whether that
DD wants to be bothered with trivia or not?
--
Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long
xtifr@debian.org | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single
or xtifr@speakeasy.net | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
Reply to: