Re: The role of debian-private
On 10.06.2010 16:16, Clint Adams wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 02:30:51PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
As wrote by Jonas, there is a risk of "cabalization".
Good discussion could also start from off-topic bad threads.
I don't care if there's a cabal to discuss whether or not America,
Hy-Brazil, Eurasia, and Scandinavia are continents or not. I don't
care if there's a cabal who thinks that Maudite doesn't taste awful.
I don't care if there's a cabal that thinks procreation is a good
thing. None of these things need to be on -private.
There are legitimate reasons to be subscribed to -private, and
none of them require tolerating off-topic discussion. "Good"
discussion would not seem to be irrelevant. If it's not meant to
be secret, it shouldn't be there. I cannot imagine why this simple
idea would be controvertible.
ok, but again, it was not the point of this thread of debian-project.
I agree with you (about some irrelevant messages), but I would like
that some less important message can still be sent in debian-private,
as we decided years ago (see below).
There are two points about debian-private.
- one about "we don't hide problem" and "public discussion",
so a lot of us care about feeling there is a "cabal".
and I think this was the point of enrico mail.
- the second one is your point: "few but more relevant messages".
But we already had such discussion some (a lots) year ago.
(I hope not disclosing too much informations, and anyway IIRC,
thus I could be very wrong).
The decision/compromise was to allow vacation messages, which are
important for some people, but annoying for many other people, and
surely not so important for the project (note: db has the vacation
flag). But we aggreed to add the "[VAC]" string to such messages.
So I interpret the decision as that "few relevant message" is not
so important, especially if we can easily filter (with MUA/procmail)
the (for us) irrelevant messages.
So I think the procedure "mark all thread as read" with the few
yearly hot-threads, it is an good compromise, instead of talking
about new list, and *trying" to enforce code of conducts (which
AFAIK are not so welcome in Debian).
If we agree about maintaining in debian-private VAC, health, children,
exams, jobs changes, keysigning+beers, and similar in debian-private,
I can fight with you against cultural/language/etc. flames of
debian-private ;-)
ciao
cate
Reply to: