Re: GOP-PROP 6: private mailing lists

[David Kastrup]

"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.

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.

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.

You may consider this ridiculous, but things like a GPLv3+ discussion
might result in something that may throw a spanner into somebody's
personal plans.

Other projects have "steering committees" and similar which is somewhat
more formal, in particular with regard to who enters and leaves.

-- 
David Kastrup