Re: follow-up to report 22

[David Kastrup]

Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:

> On 11/5/10 7:26 AM, "Graham Percival" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> 
>> I repeat: do you (not necessarily "David", but "anybody") agree
>> that an OSS project can, in theory, have some kind of private
>> mailing list?
>
> I believe that private mailing lists for an OSS project are useful and
> that LilyPond should have them.

I never stated differently: I pointed out that for various
administrative decisions, private lists (or mailing aliases) relevant to
those particular admininstrative purposes are clearly appropriate.

However, we are not talking about such lists.  What we are talking about
is a single list for all those purposes for which membership is
apparently defined rather vaguely by "project members considered
sane/safe/trustable/reasonable".

As I said, I don't feel particular emotional about the issue of that
list.  What does annoy me if people consider it necessary to construct
strawmen and invent different theoretical issues for the purpose of
getting approval for the real issue.

I consider this an indirect insult of my intelligence, and I prefer
direct insults (that was probably too easy to guess).  They are easier
to address.

At the current point of time, my main impulse would be to just treat
that as a non-issue: I can't be bothered worrying about every group of
people who, for whatever reason, consider it desirable to communicate
without including me.

It would appear that Valentin feels more strongly about that issue or
non-issue.  In light of that, it might be more polite to discuss use and
membership of the actually existing (and apparently offending) mailing
list and its inclusion criteria instead of watering down the issue by
discussing hypothetical mailing lists with well-defined purpose and
inclusion criteria based on technical necessities.

If there's not much to say presently about the issue at hand, not saying
much is also an option.

-- 
David Kastrup