On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Valentin Villenave
<address@hidden> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 1:18 AM, Joe Neeman <
address@hidden> wrote:
> What sort of signs would you find reassuring?
Well, your answer is one, for starters :)
What I meant by "reassuring signs" is pretty much any reactions from
the development team acknowledging that there might be an issue (or
something that might be perceived as such) with the way things have
been going so far. More specifically, I was referring to the few
questions I raised and suggestions I made earlier.
> I'm a member of -hackers. I've
> probably sent two emails to the list in the four or so years that I've been
> a member. Nevertheless, I think it's useful to have around. For one thing,
> the traffic is so low that I actually *read* the emails on it, whereas I
> often miss emails to -devel unless someone CCs me.
Good point.
That would apply to any other low-traffic mailing-list, though (and
doesn't explain why the archives, no matter how old, need to be
private).
If the archives were public, it might deter people from speaking frankly. Obviously, everyone knows by now that we've had a thread discussing David; had there been public archives (or a plan to make them public in the future), that conversation would have probably gone off-list. Which defeats the purpose of having such a list in the first place.
> I don't have any
> particularly strong opinions about what the list policies should be, but I
> am in favor of keeping it.
Again, I do not strongly object against keeping it either.
So, a temporary list of -hackers members would include Han-Wen, Jan,
Graham, (possibly Mats?), John, Reinhold, yourself... and counting
(this is me "playing journalist", as Graham would say).
I doubt anyone objects to having a public list of the -hackers members. If we do create such a list, it's probably more efficient just to get a list from the list administrator rather than sleuthing around.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the impression that this list
is but a thing from the past. It would explain why old-time "senior
developers", as Graham calls them, are still members, but not "new"
developers who have _only_ been around for less than, what? three
years?
That sounds about right.
Still, there's some kind of a paradox: what you guys are telling us is
basically "nobody really uses this mailing list"... "but let's keep it
anyway". (Which is exactly what I was already told several years ago.)
Anyway, if you find it "useful", then by all means do keep it. But it
would be a pity to keep it "just in case", regardless of what it, for
all intents and purposes, may make the LilyPond project look like from
where regular contributors are standing. (Again, I'm speaking for
myself and aren't assuming that my point of view is shared by anyone
else.)
Do you really think that having a private mailing list damages the project? That is, assuming that we are open about its existence/purpose/whatever?
Cheers,
Joe