On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:02:49 +0100, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > So that's why the list is closed and important content is moving > there. I think you and I have very different definitions of closed. Putting the semantics of open/closed terminology aside for a minute.. I don't think its irrational to expect people who are actively contributing to Extras to have a prominent say in how the policies of Extras are implemented. There is a way for you to become a part of that peer group, and have a seat at the table. If you don't desire to be a contributor , that's understandable. But you have to realize that if you choose not to become one you most likely have less impact on how the system evolves as decisions are being made. Back to the issue of Would you call Apache's organizational structure closed? Apache Foundation has several mailinglists that are committer only: http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html Several of those Foundation lists.. aren't even publicly accessible for review. And yet I would call Apache an open, collaborative, community process.. which is exactly what Apache calls themselves. If you feel Apache isn't an open process either... fine.. "open" is rather open to intepretation. Just be aware that what's going inside Fedora is not out-of-step with how Apache organizes things and calibrate your indignation accordingly. In Apache's model a committer is nearly the same as what an Extras contributor is defined to be right now: http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#committers And Apache's "Foundation Community Mailing List" seems very much like the Fedora's "fedora-maintainers" list to me. Committer equivalent level access.. with a public archive for review. You are free to continue to stand outside the process, if becoming a maintainer isn't something you desire, but please let's dial down the sensationalized language about open versus closed like its a black and white issue. -jef
