Re: GOP-PROP 6: private mailing lists

[Jan Warchoł]

2011/7/22 Graham Percival <address@hidden>
> ** Proposal summary
>
> What should we do with potentially sensitive or private matters in
> lilypond? I see two possible solutions:
>
>   1. Pick one person to manage private discussions.
>   2. Have a private mailing list with a known list of people who
> will discuss such matters.

I have a slight preference for the first option.  But i don't think it
really matters.


2011/7/22 address@hidden <address@hidden>:
> The sole issue of trust is one of representation, and I think that Graham 
> represents the project very well and can decide who to pass certain 
> discussions onto.

+1


2011/7/22 Trevor Daniels <address@hidden>:
> 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.
>
> Other issues which are better discussed in private should be
> conducted by an ad hoc group chosen to suit the issue, since
> these are likely to be rare and diverse.  The membership of
> such groups could be on the list of issues decided on the
> private mailing list described above.

This sounds reasonable.


2011/7/22 Valentin Villenave <address@hidden>:
> And first off, obviously, it should be officially
> acknowledged that such non-public discussions exist.

??  It's obvious that non-public discussion do and will exist.  The
only important thing is what they are about (i.e. something important
for the project, like giving push access or beginning an official
collaboration with some university or organization).


2011/7/24 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> I'll reiterate that I don't think this is a great long-term
>> solution -- I view the "private CCing" idea as a temporary
>> compromise for the next 12-18 months.  Once we've gotten into the
>> habit of regular releases, a more firm set of development
>> proposals+guidelines, and GLISS done, we should look at having an
>> official "steering committee" or "board of directors" or something
>> like that.
>
> I am somewhat afraid that it may amount to social overengineering for a
> project of this size.  Factions, votes, in- and outsiders might detract
> more than they help.
>
> On the other hand, your listed preconditions don't sound like they would
> make those measures imminent real soon.

Hey, don't we hope to attract hordes of new developers in the months-to-come? ;)
Yes, a formal institution like that will make sense only when our
development team will grow *much* larger.

cheers,
Janek