incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From TJ Frazier <tjfraz...@cfl.rr.com>
Subject Re: admin permissions on old OOo
Date Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:19:28 GMT
Ross,
I am not taking this personally, but I /am/ replying personally, below.

On 1/30/2012 15:57, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 30 January 2012 19:45, TJ Frazier<tjfrazier@cfl.rr.com>  wrote:
>> On 1/30/2012 14:22, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>> What specific things are being asked of you?
>>>
>>>
>>> To remove a specific email message posted to a public list
>>> (documentation) by mistake.
>>
>>
>> If the message is on one of the two documentation ML's (author or dev
>> @doc.oo.o) I can remove it, or at least the SYMPA page says I can.
>> You or the user can mail me at tjfrazier@openoffice.org, or bring the matter
>> to this list (ooo-dev). I need sender and date.
>
> The ASF has a policy of *not* removing mails in the majority of cases.
> It simply is not possible to do so since our mailing lists are
> archived all over the place. See
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/public-archives.html
>
Most organizations, like most individuals, have a few suboptimal 
policies (calling them "damn-fool" would be rude, so I won't). The ASF 
is no exception, and this policy is one of them.

AFAICS, the rationales for the policy are:

(1) "Can't do it perfectly." True, but this is the age-old conflict 
between "the good vs. the best", or "improvement vs. perfection". I 
assert that there is no overarching answer to these, hence the decisions 
must be made at a lower level. In this general case, I lean strongly 
toward "improvement". It is the friendly thing to do, and we build 
community one friend at a time.
(2) "Publisher of record." Let's not get too full of ourselves, here. If 
a post makes a point in a discussion and prompts replies, or otherwise 
meets some criterion of "general importance", I would argue to keep it. 
If not, and if the user wants it gone, it's toast.
(3) "Too much work." (a) Frequency: I have moderated two (admittedly not 
very active) lists for about 6 months. This is the first such request I 
have received. YMMV. (b) Level of effort: This user provided a direct 
link to the archived message. It took me one click to get there, maybe 
10 seconds to confirm that this was the information in question, one 
click to delete it, and a third click to close the browser. This might 
be harder under ezmlm, but that's something for ezmlm moderators to take 
up with Infra.
(4) "The user should have known better." True, but don't be snide.

Interestingly enough, despite my rant, my action (I have deleted the 
post) seems to fall within policy!

  /tj/

> ...
>
>>>> Why aren't they being brought to the list (either details, or at least an
>>>> overview of what this work is about)?
>>>
>>>
>>> Because the person wanting the removal, I presume, did not know about
>>> the new changes. I have no problem explaining things--have--but I'm
>>> simply laying out the facts.
>>>>
>
> The point is that you are not a contact point for the AOO project,
> this list is. If you, as a single individual, choose to act on
> requests like these and others that you frequently claim are coming
> your way you will quickly run out of time or you will fail to address
> the requests. Please share everything here (or on the private lists if
> absolutely necessary).
>
> Personally I would rather see you spending time addressing the issue
> with SPI funds since you are the named individual dealing with the SPI
> (or alternatively indicating that you do not intend to do so, thereby
> making way for someone else to do it).
>
> Ross
>
>



Mime
View raw message