On Tue, 13 Dec 2011, Michael Richardson wrote: > The point is not to make it not-archived, the point is to delay the > archive while the group figures out what's it's policy is. If some > participants archive it and post it, oh well. It's not like it's > wikileaks.
First, if anyone is going to be archiving it publicly, then there's no reason why Debian shouldn't be archiving it. Secondly, the policy of archival or non-archival has to be resolved before list creation, as altering the policy requires agreement from too many people. [For example, if the list was to be embargoed for a period of time, with archives available publicly after an embargo, or similar.] Finally, limited-subscription lists always generate a problem with deciding who is able to be subscribed. For example, you obviously couldn't have a discussion about Company A's negotiations with Debian if Company A's competitors were also subscribed. The only way this would work is if the list was set up like -private, and only DDs (or vetted individuals) were allowed to be subscribed. Even that could lead to some problems where DDs head (or work for) companies (for example, Credativ and Canonical could potentially have inside information that was not easily available to companies which had not hired DDs.) The idea behind the list is great, but I think the practical problems of a closed list may outweigh the benefits. [It'd probably also be reasonable to broach this on -project once a subscriber policy and/or archival policy was worked out.] Don Armstrong -- [On a trip back from collecting grass seeds in tropical bird stomachs and being thought by the customs agents to be transporting Marijuana.] "Anyone so square as to tell you they are transporting grass seeds is bound to be OK" -- Peter K. Klopfer _Seeds of Doubt_ Science 134:177 10 April 2009 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
