On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 11:35:20PM -0700, Loren Wilton wrote: > > I'm *really worried* about proposals that involve mailing lists that > > have only private archives and require moderator approval for > > subscription. It just doesn't feel right for an open source project. > > I understand the feeling. I'm trying to balance the obvious desire for a > completely public process with the absolutely known fact that publishing a > rule in the user's group will literally within hours lead to the rule > becoming useless in many cases.
I guess you'd have better data than I would; but I'm still having trouble believing that Spammers are adjusting on that time frame. > (I've even a couple of times as a test given the bodies for slightly bogus > rules out - that detected a not particularly useful spam sign - to see if > the spam sign disappeared, and how quickly. Indeed, the signs would usually > disappear. One could probably conclude something about the spam gang using > a particular sign from how quickly after publication of a rule the sign > disappears; but I'm not particularly interested in that form of research.) > > This led to my twofold suggestion that a) entry to the group be moderated, > and b) the archives be embargoed for a week or two, or perhaps a month. But how do we know who should be allowed access to the group? I definitely prefer delayed archives to closed ones. > For instance, on many projects to be a developer you have to be > admitted to developer access to the source. Others can look at the > source and make their own versions, but can't necessarily modify the > actual project source unless the local gods approve of them. (See > for instance the description of the Audacity project over at SF, > which I was looking at earlier today.) I'm really not sure what you mean here. Audacity is licensed under the GPL. The main difference between the GPL and the Apache license (IIRC, IANAL, etc) is that with the GPL, if you do make changes and distribute a changed version, you need to distribute the source of the changed version. I'm sure they have the same procedures with respect to modifying the official project source as we do, namely there is a group of committers that have access to do this, everyone else gets to submit patches to them. (And I'm not sure what you mean by "local gods". Most developers are human, at least the ones I've met in person... :-P ) -- Duncan Findlay
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
