In a private mail, Greg Stein suggested that the python-dev archives should be restricted to the members of the list. I prefer to make them public, but I won't want to impose this on others without discussion. So I've made the archives private for the time being while we discuss this meta-issue. (Also, the existence of the list isn't announced by mailman on its listinfo page.) Here's my argument for open archives. I don't think that we have anything to hide from the public -- I think of us as a technical forum whose discussions may affect others (e.g. Python users) and I think it's often useful for those others to be able to see what we've said. I want to keep membership of the list closed as a gentle way to enforce focus and quality of discussion. Jeremy pointed out that there's no restiction on posting, and mentioned that together with open archives this makes the list just as open as an open-subscription list. I don't see this equivalence -- certainly it makes a difference in practice, and the open posting is simply a mechanism to allow members with multiple email addresses to post from whereever they are. If we regularly get spammed or find the list is targeted by angry Python users we might have to restrict posting to members (and deal with the multiple address problem). I hope the discussion about this issue will be short (otherwise it would detract from the real goal of this list). I'll follow the desire of the majority of current members; once we have a decision I propose to stick with it and simply present new members with the facts. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
On Mon, 26 Apr 1999, Guido van Rossum wrote:
In a private mail, Greg Stein suggested that the python-dev archives should be restricted to the members of the list. I prefer to make them public, but I won't want to impose this on others without discussion. So I've made the archives private for the time being while we discuss this meta-issue. (Also, the existence of the list isn't announced by mailman on its listinfo page.)
If one has a public archive with restricted membership, then one needs to have a process for people to petition membership, including policies on deciding admission (which could be as vague as "up to GvR's whim"). FWIW, the perl5-porters list is open but the perl6-porters list is closed. My suggestion is that we can start with an open policy on archives, and the lax posting policy for the multiple email address business (which should be incorporated in mailman++ =), with the explicitely stated caveat that if it turns out that that policy doesn't work, we reserve the right to tighten things up. I also suggest that we don't advertise the fact that anyone can post. [Except of course that we've just mentioned this in archives which I'm arguing should be public =)] --david
On 26 April 1999, Guido van Rossum said:
In a private mail, Greg Stein suggested that the python-dev archives should be restricted to the members of the list. I prefer to make them public, but I won't want to impose this on others without discussion. So I've made the archives private for the time being while we discuss this meta-issue. (Also, the existence of the list isn't announced by mailman on its listinfo page.)
Here's my argument for open archives. I don't think that we have anything to hide from the public -- I think of us as a technical forum whose discussions may affect others (e.g. Python users) and I think it's often useful for those others to be able to see what we've said.
I favour as much openness as possible that's consistent with high signal-to-noise. Opening the archives doesn't affect SN ratio; for that matter, neither does allowing anyone to *read* the list while keeping posting privileges restricted. And letting the world know that the list exists -- even though posting privileges are restricted -- shouldn't affect quality. So I guess my position is: definitely open the archives and publicise the list -- the benefit of an open archive is reduced if people can't stumble across it like they can any sig. And consider the possibility of open subscription while keeping posting restricted. Not sure how easy that is with Mailman, but we can still consider the idea. The open, friendly nature of the Python community is a huge strength. I tentatively agree that posting privileges should be restricted to keep quality high, but the idea of a "secret cabal" discussing Python development off in a dark corner away from the grubby masses seems very counter to the spirit I've seen so far. Greg -- Greg Ward - software developer gward@cnri.reston.va.us Corporation for National Research Initiatives 1895 Preston White Drive voice: +1-703-620-8990 Reston, Virginia, USA 20191-5434 fax: +1-703-620-0913
"GW" == Greg Ward <gward@cnri.reston.va.us> writes:
GW> And consider the possibility of open subscription while GW> keeping posting restricted. Not sure how easy that is with GW> Mailman, but we can still consider the idea. It could be done in a number of ways. You could restrict postings to members only, but as Guido has pointed out, a lot of people post from more than one account and Mailman doesn't handle that very well yet. Or you could moderate the list, but then someone has to approve postings and that's more work than I think anybody wants to do. I'm also for an open-as-possible policy, with the right to restrict later if the s/n gets too low. I sort of view Python-dev to be the place that serious c.l.py proposals get fleshed out and implementation strategies discussed. The (hopefully) high level of technical detail on the list should self-select. -Barry
[Barry]
The (hopefully) high level of technical detail on the list should self-select.
I thought the humor did that. If the public-archive were only updated weekly, it would make it's use (or abuse) as glorified help list pretty tenuous. No one has espoused Greg's reasoning. In the abscense of said arguments, I'm certainly inclined to vote for "as public as can be and still be focused". -OTOH-then-I'll-never-know-what-goes-on-in-the-smoke-filled-room-ly y'rs - Gordon
[Greg Ward, arguing in favor of ... a "secret cabal" discussing Python development off in a dark corner away from the grubby masses ] That's what I'd like too -- but somebody already let Gordon in <wink>. voting-to-leave-it-public-until-there's-a-problem-ly y'rs - tim
participants (6)
-
Barry A. Warsaw -
David Ascher -
Gordon McMillan -
Greg Ward -
Guido van Rossum -
Tim Peters