[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GOP-PROP 6: private mailing lists

From: address@hidden
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 6: private mailing lists
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:32:14 +0200

On Jul 22, 2011, at 10:21 AM, David Kastrup wrote:

> "address@hidden" <address@hidden> writes:
>> On Jul 22, 2011, at 1:59 AM, Graham Percival wrote:
>>> ** Private list membership?
>>> If we want to pursue a private mailing list, rather than “whoever
>>> Graham thinks/remembers to cc”, then the obvious question is “who
>>> should be on it?”.
>>> My initial thought is to keep it small – say, 5 people. Other than
>>> me, Han-Wen, and Jan, I have no firm ideas about who else.
>>> The list of members should be public.
>> I actually like the solution "whoever Graham thinks/remembers to cc."
>> If someone wants to have a private discussion about accordion symbols
>> versus vertical spacing, those are two different lists of people that
>> would bring the most useful contributions (with a bit of overlap).
>> Otherwise, I don't mind private lists at all (be they ad hoc or
>> recurrent) - it is an extension of free speech and free assembly, both
>> of which seem to be in keeping with the idea of "free" software.
> When there is a fixed mailing list/alias, members of that list are not
> free to decide who to communicate with.

I disagree - members of that list are free to choose to subscribe subject to 
the list and therefore its terms.  The freedom to selectively desabjugate one's 
freedoms is a freedom.

> Now of course, if people choose to communicate in a private circle of
> their choosing, there is nothing wrong with that.  And if there is a
> Lilypond meeting somewhere, its circle of members is established (and on
> multiple meetings, "round up the usual suspects" applies).  But that is
> local, non-organized, non-formal.

Even when it is formal, it is a choice.  I receive the lilypond-devel e-mails 
because I chose to.

> I should certainly think that there are things one can discuss more
> easily in a limited circle.  But establishing a mailing list like that,
> however, means splitting the user community into a group one can and
> will discuss anything with, and a group that will never be consulted
> when there is at least one person in the entire public not fit for the
> respective discussion.
>> So long as the entirety of the git repo remains cloneable, modifiable,
>> and resetable, I'm happy.
> If there were plans to make this otherwise, you would not hear about
> them until it is too late.

The presence or absence of a list would have no impact on this.  I think that 
putting limits on who talks to who and in what conditions is not a fruitful 
debate.  If Bertrand and I decide to establish a private LilyPond list that 
no-one but use two uses, GOP-PROP 6 will have no bearing on what we do.  The 
sole issue of trust is one of representation, and I think that Graham 
represents the project very well and can decide who to pass certain discussions 


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]