Roman,
I've been beating the archiving problem with president@ like a dead horse for
the past week- what on earth have you been reading to avoid that reality?
Furthermore, I doubt president@ has an associated qmail owner file, which means
any addresses listed in that alias that go to domains whose mail servers do
strict SPF checks will BOUNCE email from major email providers who publish such
rules, and those bounce mails may wind up being DROPPED by Apache's qmail
server since it's attempt to deliver the bounce mail back to the sender may
also be REJECTED by the original sending domain.
All of this leads to problems that, while some are fixable, others are simply
not. We need a better strategy, and it should be collaborative rather than
dictatorial.
On Thursday, May 26, 2016 7:36 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Shane Curcuru <a...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> Roman Shaposhnik wrote on 5/26/16 6:20 PM:
> ...
>> Before I answer that question, lets clarify something:
>>
>>> * Keep the current mechanism (report to the archived alias
>>> president@apache)
>>> but change the CoC text to indicate that reporting is not confidential.
>>
>> My understanding from the explanation Ross gave me was that reports to
>> president@a.o were strictly confidential (which in my mind also translated
>> into
>> lack of archives). Ross, can you please elaborate on this?
>
> Emails to president@ (as far as I can tell) go to an alias which
> forwards to Ross (and EVP, and possibly someone else), as well as going
> to an archived mailbox which I and others can access (not sure if it's
> just a group of officers & board, or if this archive is Member access).
This is horrible. Not you, Shane, of course, but rather my understanding
of what it does.
> Happy for someone from infra to point out the specific technical
> details, but no, if we want a fully confidential CoC reporting method,
> in my mind president@ is *not* sufficient for the long term.
>
> I would prefer for President, EVP, directors to agree on a single email
> alias that is an unarchived alias, with a published list of the specific
> ASF Officers or Members that it goes to directly (names to be approved
> by President).
That is exactly my preference as well.
Marvin, at this point what I'm about to ask of you is grossly unfair (since
your proposal, apparently doesn't really make anything worse) but would
you consider the above statement by Shane to be your course of action?
Thanks,
Roman.
