Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Guidelines for list conduct policy
From: drew <drew@baseanswers.com>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEtvNKeuRSW1VwY7QW7guffJ4ZDRFXcaaErHko7NdBR9_=fTGg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
	 <CALRLYEmNemUkrRjGK8TCeuYcyHmEELheTiEZkEk1mu3VKpjS=w@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CAKQbXgCnb21v03dyAypNbqM2nKxpeORvsHmLTFjnCvAnTLijFg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4FE0EFE3.6040708@btconnect.com> <1340143349.14207.5.camel@sybil-gnome>
	 <CAEtvNKeuRSW1VwY7QW7guffJ4ZDRFXcaaErHko7NdBR9_=fTGg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:33:48 -0400
Message-ID: <1340145228.14914.6.camel@sybil-gnome>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 00:14 +0200, RGB ES wrote:
> 2012/6/20 drew jensen <drewjensen.inbox@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> List Conduct Policy
> >>
> >>    1.
> >>    What Happens on the list, stays on the list:
> >>    Anything you read in the private list is by default a private PPMC
> >>    affair and not to be spoken of, or copied to, other people who are not in
> >>    the PPMC.  If you think about it, most topic threads probably should
> >> be in
> >>    the public lists, except choosing committers and PPMC members, and a very
> >>    few other topics.
> >>    In fact, all email lists or email conversations have this aspect of
> >>    privacy. Even if there are 23000 subscribers on the list, it is assumed
> >>    that privacy will be maintained and a list member's name and location
> >> will
> >>    not be disclosed in some public venue where personal privacy is not
> >> expected,
> >>    such as published in a newspaper or some other.
> >
> > hi,
> >
> > I would disagree with that last statement completely - a public list is
> > just that, public, and there should be absolutely no expectation of
> > privacy whatsoever. To pretend otherwise is simply to lie to those who
> > would use the list.
> >
> > //drew
> 
> Point one refers to the private lists, I think.
> 
> Maybe add a "point zero" with an introduction to the mailing lists, as
> Ross asked? Not a detailed introduction, just to say most lists are
> public but one is private. Then the "code of conduct" can be separated
> on a "general part" that apply to all lists and a second part with
> additional rules (for instance, the privacy one) for the private list.
> 
> Ricardo
> 

OK if that is really just about private lists, but the last sentence
read to me as if it was broader.

Anyway - to be honest I find the whole subject rather silly. Does anyone
really need to be told that what happens on a private list is by
definition to be held in confidence?

//drew