On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Trevor Daniels <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> wrote: > I would be in favour of a fixed private mailing list with publicly > known members to decide a publicly known list of issues, > including the obvious granting/withdrawing git push access, > but probably little else. Membership should be either Graham, > Han-Wen and Jan, or these three supplemented by two others. > Requests for a private discussion would be sent to this list, > avoiding the single-Graham point of failure.
Once again, you make some excellent points.However if said list has to be limited to *five* people, I do question the need for a mailing list at all, rather than merely CCing whomever needs to be CCed. The whole point of mailing lists, in my opinion, is archives: if this list's archives are not meant to be made public, ever, then I'm certainly missing the point (assuming there's one) of having a mailing list. I personally have been spending days browsing through the LilyPond and Guile mailing list archives, including very old (sometimes heated or controversial) discussions that nobody really cares about today. Therefore I have been suggesting that archives could be "declassified" after a given amount of time (five or seven years seem quite enough for any sensitive debate to cool off and lose any potential disruptiveness). No matter how, a key issue, as you pointed out, is that the list of people in charge, as well as the general topics they discuss, should be made public. And first off, obviously, it should be officially acknowledged that such non-public discussions exist. (Mild) cheers, Valentin. _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
