Ben Hyde said:
Didn't we settle this most contentious issue some time ago with a few megabytes of text and a long complex vote coupled with a solid turn out? If so it's painful and cruel to reopen the issue. - ben
I've already apologized twice for rehashing an old issue, but that is obviously a penalty a list must pay if it has no archives.
True. In fact, this list voted to have a public archive in place. The fact that such archive is not existing is merely a do-ocracy issue: nobody cared enough to create the archive.
From what I've been able to glean from people's selective memory and mail quotes, the lack of archives is simply an oversight. What that tells me is that there was never an intention to discuss anything private on this list. Rather, the purpose of closing this list seems to have been intended to keep out unwanted opinion. I still find this repugnant.
Look again. The intention of the people who voted to keep it closed is to keep the signal/noise ratio high enough so that people can cope with it.
I will reiterate my arguments, then I'll go away for to save you all the pain of my opinions:
1. The list is, at minimum, terribly misnamed. The Apache community
consists of more than just committers.
The majority of the people which are interested (quite a lot, that votation was the most voted poll in the entire history of the foundation) voted to keep it closed to try to improve the signal/noise ratio but also recognized the necessity to make available to the public the entire discussions so allowed a public archive to be available.
>What about the thousands of people who have made substantial contributions to Apache by submitting important patches, filing detailed bug reports, answering questions on users lists, etc? You can guarantee that many of these people have contributed more to Apache than many committers.
2. Excluding outside opinions hurts us all. It limits our perspective, it inhibits the recruitment of new participants, and it makes us seem like a bunch of stuck-up "cool kids" who just want to keep to ourselves.
And no, allowing "invited guests" does not eliminate either problem.
I'm not sure this is the type of "community" that I want to participate in.
CVS repositories are open for read and closed for write to people who deserved that right.
This is an ASF-wide community mail list. It's open for read (just didn't happen yet) and closed for write to people who deserved that right.
Since we have CVS and mail list oversight on code and we can always roll back, we could, in theory, let everybody write on CVS and filter them out later.
We could apply the same policy here.
Since the ASF decided for closing down the CVS repositories and filter people *before* they are given the ability to modify the code, we are applying the same pattern here.
Please explain why you find this pattern 'repugnant' on a mail list, but you don't on a CVS repository.
-- Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
