The 27/09/12, Karol Blazewicz wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Nicolas Sebrecht <nsebrecht@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The 27/09/12, Tobias Frilling wrote: > > > > The problem is not at the general mailing list but at the dev mailing > > list side. > > archlinux-dev is for contributors and as long somebody is just a user > he should have read-only access. You pretend that giving access because of the status is better. I claim it's wrong and it's more benefic for everybody to split mailing lists in terms of expected _topics_. > Unless we have a way (and a will) of > banning people from that list, there is nothing we can do to prevent > flames there, if we open it up. I understand you might be afraid. This just won't happen because members of the dev mailing list are talking about code and maintenance jobs in concrete terms. Look at the Gentoo dev mailing list. It's fully open. The community is _way_ wider than Arch's one and things are going right. There won't be flames unless you clearly concede that some topics are _exposed_ to flames. If so, this is because topics discussed in the dev mailing list are not as technical as they are supposed to and some of the ones who make the decisions don't always rely on technical facts. > The discussion on archlinux-dev is often based on RFCs made by some > dev and you can comment on it on arch-general just fine. So, you admit that constructive topics are going to be splitted between mailing lists only because of the policy relying on status. Then you should also admit: * each time a thread is broken over mailing lists, the "out-going" threads lose touch with contributors not subscribed to the users mailing list; * not official Arch members have more pain to reach official contributors directly in a public way (members of the dev mailing list are not supposed to be subscribed to the users mailing list and mailing lists are not nested); * interesting contributions are lost because the policy is a discouraging frein to people who'd like to involve themselve a bit more into the maintenance job; * people are not much motivated to contribute from time to time because of the status wall. > Can you give some examples of discussions you would see moving to archlinux-dev? Sure. Subject: [arch-general] Modifying archiso From: Robbie Smith <z...@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:47:11 +1000 To: arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Message-ID: <5058431F.5090707@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: [arch-general] Open Build Service adds support for Arch Linux From: André Prata <b...@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:48:36 +0100 To: arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [arch-general] swt - why depends bump to java-runtime>=7? From: "David C. Rankin" <d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:06:46 -0500 To: Archlinux <arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Message-ID: <504E5666.3000902@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [arch-general] archiso - more install guides From: vadim kochan <v...@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2012 22:33:39 +0300 To: arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [arch-general] Requesting ownership of the bugs for AIF in the bugtracker From: Jeremiah Dodds <j....dodds@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 05:21:24 -0400 To: Arch General List <arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Message-ID: <87ehmjxy0b.fsf@friendface.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> Subject: [arch-dev-public] Re: [RFC] another base cleanup From: Nicolas Sebrecht <n...@xxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:27:58 +0200 To: Public mailing list for Arch Linux development <arch-dev-public@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Message-ID: <20120607072758.GB2427@nicolas-desktop> These are only samples. I can't take the samples of topic not even written Here is a good article: http://blog.cyberborean.org/2006/03/03/open-source-best-practices-part-i-community Take this excerpt " Don’t let the people feel they do something personally for you – this is ultimately not the case since you’ve published your code. Let them feel this is their project as well as it is yours — and this is really so. Don’t turn your authority as an initial developer and project maintainer into dictation. Remember Tao: “If you want to lead other people, you must put their interest ahead of your own”. " and apply the argument for the mailing lists instead of the code only. My point is that the dev mailing list should be the *main* discussion forum of the community. The users mailing list should not be turned into a "This is the place where people without authority are welcome to exchange with other non-authority people" . Oh, and for the arch-general mailing list we should even add "Even if you can't talk directly with authoritative members and have contructive discussions with them you MUST follow strict policy and technical power users discussions. If not the authoritative members might and WILL close your mailing list for some time for punishment" . -- Nicolas Sebrecht
