On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 19:24, Nathan Hartman <hartman.nat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:33 AM Daniel Sahlberg > <daniel.l.sahlb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > *thread reply* > > > > I think everyone should take a deep breath and then we should re-start > the conversation with the purpose of learning and improving because at the > moment it seems that emotions are way to high. > > > > As I see it - and as usual, I'm new to the party so I don't have > historical context: > > > > * Subversion release process dictate to announce first, update website > later. There is a reason for it but we can improve on the process. I've > raised this at dev@ and received positive feedback from stsp. > > * The RM an honest mistake and forgot to update the download page on the > website. He has admitted and apologized. No problem, we all make mistakes, > right? > > * Moderation rejected the announce mail quite harshly. I would agree > that the missing links was reasonable cause to /hold back/ the > announcement, but I think it was done in a way (tone and outright rejection > instead of reaching out "hey, did you forget to update the download page?") > that didn't invite to further communication. (I'm not comenting on the KEYS > file issue, I wasn't around last time and I don't have the time to look up > the policy, but from what I understand this was a minor issue). > > > > As far as I understand everyone in the Subversion project are > volunteers. I don't know about the moderators but I assume they are as > well. We need to treat eachother with respect and try to find the most > efficient way for the community as a whole and not just "looking from the > perspectiv of ****". > > > > Kind regards, > > Daniel Sahlberg > > > I agree that there needs to be respect and appreciation for everyone's > volunteer efforts here, and in the spirit of openness and cooperation > I have a suggestion to make: > > Since it seems that "not being spam" isn't enough to make an > announcement, and this is a long standing issue (it goes back farther > than last May), it would be immensely helpful, both for us and for the > moderators, if there were publicly posted rules that clearly outline: > "this is what moderators check; this is the criteria moderators use to > accept or reject an email to this list." This would clearly set > expectations and help to prevent the repeating issues that I'm sure > are frustrating to the list operators, and I know are frustrating for > us. > > I agree that this would be useful. Where would you expect to find such information? And what rules would you expect to see? Remember that the announce@ list is ASF-wide, so emails need to be worded accordingly. Thanks to everyone for your support. > > Nathan >
