SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 03:44:40PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> ... The more important part, from my point of view, >> is that we offer choices (the proposed doc update illustrates >> three). > > I remember a discussion about whether that list and its archive should > be open or closed, and I agree that offering choices is good. > However, since that mentoring list requires registration, we have to > carefully consider how to present it to newcomers. > > Openly accessible knowledge is a fundamental value, and it's the > foundation of open source. Therefore, we definitely should not direct > newcomers to a closed mailing list as the first option, it can only be > a fallback. I am not that dogmatic ;-) I would be very unhappy and probably would not have joined if the main development community was closed, but I do not think the "knowledge" the "closed mentoring list for those who are shy" are meant to impart to newbies will be something that will be so well kept secret that are shared among only those in the closed list. I expect the mentoring list to be repeating what those who graduated "new"-ness consider pretty much common public knowledge. Having said that, my reading did hiccup when queuing Emily's text, in that it listed the mentoring list first, and (more problematic) the only choice among the three described with a word "great" was that one. Also, now I re-read it, the last sentence "You must join the group to view messages or post", without explaining why it is set up that way is bound to give a wrong impression, I suppose. I presume that the reason why those who wanted to make the mentoring list closed was because they thought it would be nicer for shysters, but if that is the case, it probably is better to spell that out. > The text should list git@vger as the first option, since that's the > only open mailing list we have, it should clearly emphasize that > newcomers are very welcome, and should explicitly encourage them to > post their questions here, no matter how trivial or silly they think > those questions are, we'll be always glad to answer them. I have no problem with seeing an expanded invitation to the main list. I do not have a strong opinion on the order of three items. > The closed mailing list can be mentioned third as a fallback for those > who would prefer not to end up on public record right away or who have > any technical issues with posting to the main mailing list. I'll mark the topic on hold (it is in 'next'), and would give the stakeholders some time to settle the discussion, perhaps with counter-proposals in an incremental patch form. Would it be reasonable to set the deadline around the end of the next week?
