On Tue, 27 Aug 2013, Patty Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:08:09AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > > I also cannot see the need to have this list created as > > private-secret-nonarchived. Some preferences specific to each of the > > kids will be discussed, sure, but I really doubt strong > > individual-characteric features of each kid will be part of > > this. Stating you have a given number of kids, of a given age (or age > > rank), or that you want allergies to be taken into consideration > > should not require setting up another -private list. Even worse, as > > you are requesting it not to be archived. > > I can absolutely understand why people want to keep the conversation on such > a list closed. I sincerely doubt that privacy concerns and protectiveness of > children is limited to the society in whcih I live, and hearing that this > concern was raised by *TWO* Debian Developers who are interested in having a > safe atmosphere for them (and their spouses) to help coordinate plans that > may, or may not, include timetables and places to meet and such where > children will be present, I don't think this request is off-base at all. In > fact, I think this is by far one of the *BEST* uses of private, closed > mailing lists. And I could probably argue that it's a better use of privacy > and closure than other lists within the Debian mailing list structure. This won't work. You can't really hide things and allow an open atmosphere. And for me as a Dad of two children I really don't like the idea that the general term of child care is discussed in private. As I already offered: create two lists. One for the _general_ discussion of children on debconf without a specific relation to a kid themselve and a second list/alias for the team to discuss/coordinate the things that aren't for the public.
Everything else makes it impossible for any latecomers to participate in this discussion. > > official lists? > > Which brings us back into contention about whether DebConf is a separate > entity from Debian, or a part of the Debian project. Back at DC10, the > discussion was resolved that DebConf is a part of the Debian project, and > exists to improve Debian. At the time, efforts were being made to > coordinate funding and fund*raising* make it clear that the Debian project > feels this way. More recently, efforts have been made to discontinue > separation of DebConf organization from the rest of the project (namely, by > moving mailing lists to the main Debian structure, among other minor > changes). > > I don't feel a separate mailing list structure is necessary to accommodate a > mailing list meant to be a lower-volume, more targetted (and private!) list > for accompanying families of a DebConf attendee to help coordinate amongst > themselves. > > It might mean that some people who sit out a DebConf won't see what's > happened at that conference. I don't necessarily consider this a problem. > It was also their choice to sit out a DebConf, and they wouldn't need to be > coordinating at that time anyway. On the other hand, they could certainly > join it even if they aren't attending a particular DebConf, but the traffic > on the mailing list wouldn't likely be of interest to them that year. I disagree. I - speaking as a father - am interested in that discussion. > > I just remain unconvinced what the problem of having this mailing list for > DebConf purposes is. Are we worried about precedent set by requesting a > private, no archive list? Are there any other private, no archive lists as > part of the Debian listserve? If so, what reasons were they granted those > attributes? There are a few private lists like ctte that are non-public. In case of ctte the reasoning is that the main intention of the list is about discussing things that may harm other developers when such discussions happen in public. Alex _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
