On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 16:21 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:33 PM, drew <d...@baseanswers.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 00:14 +0200, RGB ES wrote: > > > 2012/6/20 drew jensen <drewjensen.in...@gmail.com>: > > > >> > > > >> List Conduct Policy > > > >> > > > >> 1. > > > >> What Happens on the list, stays on the list: > > > >> Anything you read in the private list is by default a private PPMC > > > >> affair and not to be spoken of, or copied to, other people who are > > not in > > > >> the PPMC. If you think about it, most topic threads probably > > should > > > >> be in > > > >> the public lists, except choosing committers and PPMC members, and > > a very > > > >> few other topics. > > > >> In fact, all email lists or email conversations have this aspect of > > > >> privacy. Even if there are 23000 subscribers on the list, it is > > assumed > > > >> that privacy will be maintained and a list member's name and > > location > > > >> will > > > >> not be disclosed in some public venue where personal privacy is not > > > >> expected, > > > >> such as published in a newspaper or some other. > > > > > > > > hi, > > > > > > > > I would disagree with that last statement completely - a public list is > > > > just that, public, and there should be absolutely no expectation of > > > > privacy whatsoever. To pretend otherwise is simply to lie to those who > > > > would use the list. > > > > > > > > //drew > > > > > > Point one refers to the private lists, I think. > > > > > > Maybe add a "point zero" with an introduction to the mailing lists, as > > > Ross asked? Not a detailed introduction, just to say most lists are > > > public but one is private. Then the "code of conduct" can be separated > > > on a "general part" that apply to all lists and a second part with > > > additional rules (for instance, the privacy one) for the private list. > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > OK if that is really just about private lists, but the last sentence > > read to me as if it was broader. > > > > Anyway - to be honest I find the whole subject rather silly. Does anyone > > really need to be told that what happens on a private list is by > > definition to be held in confidence? > > > > //drew > > > > > > > Well, Drew, I think this is why this whole discussion started. Most of us > would think the answer to your question is "no", but, well, apparently > there was some looser interpretation that some felt needed clarification.
Not at all - someone violated that trust, everyone knew it was wrong, there didn't need to be rules written for folks to know that. But that is just my opinion of course. > > Anyway, Wolf, this is really good. I think this would be better posted as > just a link on the project site, http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/, > under the Mailing Lists link, and give more clarification on item #1 that > this most importantly applies to private mailing lists. Drew's right that > we don't want to mislead people to think anything else is private. > > I think maybe it's a bit lengthy to add to a "welcome" message to list > subscribers. > > >
