Am 10/22/2011 05:23 PM, schrieb Kazunari Hirano:
Hi Marcus and all,
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote:
Wouldn't this also mean "tell us which MLs you need additionally and we (the
PPMC) will create them."
No. We don't say "tell us" but they "tell us" what kind of language
list they need, and they propose it on this list.
If lazy consensus made, they will create a jira issue asking creation
of the proposed list.
If a PPMC member or a subscriber of this list don't like their
proposal, they object.
OK, thanks for your clarification.
Finally, this will lead to the same ML structure like in the old OOo
project. And this is the point we want to avoid with a new ML handling,
right?
I don't know. What is the ML structure like in the old OOo project?
What do we want to avoid?
IMHO every project had the freedom to create (or at least request) MLs.
Therefore we had some hundreds of lists where most aren't really necessary.
Someone here wrote that it's better to have less lists with more
subscribers to strengthen the community instead of having many lists but
only with a few subscribers. I like this attitude; even when this means
that some threads are not interesting for all and therefore engaged only
by specific people.
So, I'm OK with creating one new ML for other languages but we should be
careful with creating additional ones.
Yes, we should be very careful about it.
That's why they should take time to discuss about it in their language
before proposing an additional list.
Marcus
