Anjana G Bhattacharjee wrote:
-1 (unbinding)
because this vote, and the "dot it" slip, reminds me of a problem of
relevance when "dotting the i's and crossing the t's" when framing any vote,
so to speak
in this case, would suggest that there may be a significant difference
between the options of:
(a) closing women@ and
(b) setting up an autoresponder
agreeing to option (a) would mean that someone looking for the keyword
"women@" in order to discuss an issue that he/she/they may initially feel
fits into such a category, may not know to search for a "dev@" possibility
instead, and so remain silence(d)
I plan to post to women@ indicating that we are closing the list and
d...@community welcomes their posts.
on the other hand, agreeing to option (b) could help mitigate this
circumstance
Thanks -- that's a terrific suggestion to auto-respond that women@
activity has moved to d...@community. If this vote passes, I'll check
with infra@ to see if an an auto-responder can be set up.
regards,
-jean
but as the vote is currently construed, it is not possible to distinguish
between options (a) and (b), and so a simple vote count at the end of this
vote may miss the point
personally, would like to keep a place for women@ if only for such aesthetic
redirection for the time being at least ...
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote:
[X ] +1 let's dot it
-Bertrand (I meant "let's do it" of course ;-)
