[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
onto.
Cheers,
MS