Hi, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> > It was "noise" because on a busy morning I was too distracted to read > Bertrand's original post carefully and, thus, missed your point, which was > responding directly to what he wrote. I hate it when that happens :-) but > no harm done. > Thanks for kind reply, but my point was - and is - that the framing of the vote as stated in Bertrand's original post on this thread is not clear, and so is potentially harmful. In particular, it does not quite specify all of our possibly relevant options as distinct from one another, and so some of us may think we are voting for one thing, but may be counted as if having voted for something else. In other words, what could it mean to vote positively to roll women@ into dev@ ? Does it mean closing the women@ list "and/or or" setup an autoresponder to direct people to this list instead, as Bertrand has (literally) written? Or, could it mean, technically, keeping the women@ list open together with an autoresponder that introduces dev@ and suggests posting to dev@ instead, without it being compulsory to do so? And would past/present/future members of the women@ list feel that they are being respectfully taken into account as a result of how this is being done? Let me cc this to the women@ list btw, on the off chance that some of these discussions [1] may be of direct interest, albeit that this vote has been principally conducted on the dev@ list only thus far. Hope this helps, A [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/community-dev/201007.mbox/browser
