Just realized, that many might jump over the old subject. This issue is an important issue and should not be hidden behind another subject.
rgds jan i. On 7 March 2015 at 10:03, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On 7 March 2015 at 01:55, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> > On 06/03/2015 Dave Barton wrote: >> > >> >> OK! One last attempt to clarify and resolve a trivial issue, that has >> >> become clouded in misunderstanding and mistranslated into some kind of >> >> "bike-shedding" subject. >> >> >> > >> > ...and misunderstood (or portrayed) as a transparency issue, when the >> > answer to your question on who is moderating the API list can readily be >> > found at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6095 and needed no >> > further discussion. >> >> >> ... which is of course the first place anyone would think to look! Just >> needs a "beware of the leopard" sign :-) >> >> Seriously, there's a community issue here. Those of us not on the PMC >> discovered accidentally that apparently harmless updates Kay proposed -- >> and was already implementing -- had been vetoed for undocumented reasons >> by >> unknown voices in a secret venue. Doesn't sound like the Apache Way. >> >> I believe the continued discussion is because of that and the strong >> reaction to asking about it, rather than the details of how and why to >> list >> the moderators (which to me still seems obvious, uncontroversial, modestly >> beneficial and best done simply). It begs the question why that reaction >> happened. >> > > You are opening a very important issue here. This moderator subject was, > but should never have been discussed in private. > > During my first round as PMC, and now in my second round, I can see the > private@ is being wrongly used (in my opinion, with my PMC hat on) to > have long discussions which could just as well be public. I am convinced > that the PMC is NOT doing this on purpose, but simply because they forget. > > Without disclosing content here are some interesting numbers: > private@aoo compared to dev@aoo > March: 53 on private@, 93 on dev@ > Feb: 347 on private@, 400 on dev@ > Jan: 111 on private@, 542 on dev@ > > Numbers are taken from the mail archives, and might be off by a couple. > > I am a member of several projects and it is fair to say that none of the > other private lists I follow have a similar relationship. Typically private@ > in the projects I follow count for 5-10% of the mails. > > I agree with Simon that we have a community issue here (thanks Simon for > pointing it out, I had not made the connection between moderators and the > use of private@) > > Some of the PMC are trying to stop the mail flood and remind the PMC group > to make the thread publicly, but it seems to be something that takes time. > I for one will do, as I did in the beginning of this thread (and got quite > flamed for it) disclose my own opinion and as much as I can from private@ > without breaking the rules. > > I believe it is high time to discuss this issue openly...and hopefully not > only contributors but also comitters will raise their voice. > > rgds > jan I. > > > S. >> > >
