Haven't heard much about this proposal, but I guess silence is a form of consent? I'll wait a few days before moving ahead with this, in case there's any "post-final" discussion.
http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_6.html ** Proposal summary Potentially sensitive or private matters will be referred to Graham. He will then decide who should discuss the matter on an ad-hoc basis, and forward or CC them on future emails. For emphasis, the project administrators are Han-Wen, Jan, and Graham; those three will always be CC’d on any important discussions. The lilypond-hackers mailing list will be removed. ** Status quo At the moment, this seems to be our custom. Whenever something comes up, somebody sends me a private email, and I pick an ad-hoc collection of people to discuss it with. Always Han-Wen and Jan, but often Carl, Trevor, and others. Other than the obvious “giving git push ability”, recent questions included a university project who wanted to have a focus group to discuss development. I thought we could just discuss it on -devel, but the university group wanted to keep it private. I didn’t see any harm in that, so we arranged something privately with an ad-hoc collection of lilypond developers. ** History There is some unhappy history about this idea in our development community: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-09/msg00178.html http://news.lilynet.net/spip.php?article121 http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-11/msg00076.html ** Other projects The idea of private mailing lists is hardly uncommon in open-source software. For example, http://lwn.net/Articles/394660/ about debian-private http://subversion.apache.org/mailing-lists.html private@ http://www.freebsd.org/administration.html#t-core http://foundation.gnome.org/legal/ board members pledge to keep certain matters confidential every security team of every linux distribution and OS In fact, Karl Fogel’s “Producing Open Source Software” explicitly suggests a private mailing list for some circumstances: [on granting commit/push access to a contributor] But here is one of the rare instances where secrecy is appropriate. You can't have votes about potential committers posted to a public mailing list, because the candidate's feelings (and reputation) could be hurt. http://producingoss.com/en/consensus-democracy.html#electorate ** Board of governers, voting, etc? Many projects have an official board of directors, or a list of “core developers”, with set term limits and elections and stuff. I don’t think that we’re that big. I think we’re still small enough, and there’s enough trust and consensus decisions, that we can avoid that. I would rather that we kept on going with trust+consensus for at least the next 2-3 years, and spent more time+energy on bug fixes and new features instead of administrative stuff. Project administrators are Han-Wen, Jan, and Graham. ** Implementation notes Graham’s email address will be added to the website “contact” page, at the bottom of the “Developer discussion” box, with the caption: Private matters should be sent to Graham Percival, who will discuss it with those concerned. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
