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

Re: [all candidates] What to do with debian-private ?

On 30/03/13 at 10:34 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 03:35:40PM -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> > 
> > -private is notified so DDs are aware.
> How is the state of -private those days ?  When I unsubscribed, it was still
> mixing informations that are really private, like "Alice takes holidays in
> Honolulu", some that may be private by accident, like "Bob wants to package
> libfoo-perl", and some that are irrelevant, like "Claudius likes pasta well
> cooked", "Donna does not like discussions about pasta", and "Eros thinks that
> one should not be criticised for discussing about pasta on -private".  I found
> it very tiring to have to permanently remember to never talk about a lot of
> things that should never have been private in the first place.
> If this has not changed, is that something that the DPL candidates would
> like to tackle ?  (Bonus question to the DPL candidates: are you subscribed
> to debian-private ?)


I am subscribed to -private@.

On some of our lists, we have a mix of different traffic that could have
been more clearly separated. That applies to -private@, but also to
-devel@, with the ITP mails.

I don't think that there's a widespread perception that this is a
serious problem that we should actively work on.

Generally, creating another list for the same audience, with the same
posting and visibility criterias (e.g. unmoderated; private archives)
results in more emails about "why is that mail on list A rather
than list B" than the amount of mail that some people considered
unwanted in the first place.

As an anecdote, at some point I was marginally involved in a project
whose main mailing list was fairly high traffic, due to lots of (mostly
interesting) discussions. Some people were complaining about the traffic
(on list, of course, so it generated even more traffic), and as a
result, another list, named debates@, was created. The idea was that,
once a discussion starts to grow too much on the main list, it should be
moved to the debates@ list so that people who were OK with high-traffic
lists could continue the discussion. Of course, this completely failed:
on the main list, there were many mails about "maybe it's time to move
that discussion to debates@", and some emails about "please don't, I
find this discussion interesting but I'm not subscribed to debates@".

So, creating sub-lists must be handled with care. Even if the case of
VAC messages, we have two kinds:
- social-only VAC messages ("I'll be in $city for 2 days next week, does
  someone want to meet for a drink?"), where the resulting absence is
  very unlikely to have an impact on the project.
- VAC messages that inform of an impact on the project. e.g. core team
  member informing that s/he will change job and move to a new place,
  resulting in reduced Debian activity for several months.


Reply to: