Anjana, The vote is to merge the woman@ list into this one. The way things work around here is that they get done in the way someone gets them done. So if someone cares enough to get an auto-responder set up then one will be set up.
This vote is the result of previous discussion on the topic, if you've not seen that please check the archives. The discussion covers the topics you raise. I'll try and summarise for you if you prefer: Women@ is aware of both the plan to merge lists and the vote underway. The original driving force behind women@ has participated in all discussion, as have a number of members of that list. Rolling women@ into dev@ means closing the women@ list, all business from that list will move here. An autoresponder will be set up (I agree this was not clear in the original vote, thank you for highlighting the importance of this). By moving into comdev we get a place for the women@ issues to be officially represented in the foundation as opposed to a largely inactive list with no official status. I, and others, hope that this will enable us to be more effective. However, if this proves not to be the case we can create a wo...@community.a.o as appropriate. Personally I don't see a need to hold up this action. So I'm not going to vote -1 in order to have the vote rephrased. Ross Sent from my mobile device. On 18 Jul 2010, at 07:49, Anjana G Bhattacharjee <a.g.bhattachar...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
