William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 12:16 PM 7/7/2005, Ted Husted wrote:
On 7/7/05, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't believe we should have PMC
lists (only dev and private), which is why your scenario doesn't
apply in my model of how a project works.
Could someone clarify on the difference between "private" and "pmc".
I can take this question, I was paying attention :)
Roy has been concerned for a -long- while that too much traffic
occurs on pmc, and believes it's frequently abused.
He's proposed that we change to private@ to make it perfectly
clear that only private communications occurs there, and all the
other day-to-day business of the pmc would be more likely to occur
on the dev list if the list's name wasn't so abstract.
And, I concur.
It isn't always clear to me what should be "private communication".
Perhaps some clarifying wording could be added to the "Balancing
confidentiality and public discussion" section of
http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#management .
For example, from various list threads (including some on this list) I'm
gathering that a private list is necessary for discussions about:
- personnel decisions
- legal points
- negotiations (could use a little expansion)
What are typical examples of "abuse" (so we can avoid them)?
thanks,
-jean
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
