On Friday, May 04, 2012 11:17:24 PM Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: > Not enough information to check signature validity. Show Details > On Jue 03 May 2012 08:23:29 Stefano Zacchiroli escribió: > [snip] > > > 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. > > If you happen to ask, it would also be nice to know how it worked for them.
It was implemented because at the time ubuntu-devel had a very low signal to noise ratio and developers were getting frustrated (sound familiar). My opinion is that it worked pretty well. Most of the noise immediately shifted to ubuntu-devel-discuss and a lot of developers never subscribed to it, so they were immediately helped. After some period of high noise, low value existence, the number of Ubuntu developers that subscribed to ubuntu-devel-discuss declined further. It was pointed out to some of the more problematic contributors that if they didn't knock it off and be less abusive and more productive in their list messages, they were going to have no developers left to talk to. Eventually, the situation normalized and ubuntu-devel-discuss is a fairly low volume list and most of the posts, if not particularly consistently well informed, are from people that are trying to be constructive (not, of course, right after controversial decisions get announced). The two lists separated are, in my opinion much higher signal to noise than the old combined ones. Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/6304701.fiE8eoYKvG@scott-latitude-e6320
