Subject: Re: a plea
From: "Chris DiBona" <cdibona@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 12:27:13 -0700

"can't make a career of hitting the delete button"

Seriously? We're not talking about spam here and the need for
excessive structure is -exactly- what annoys people when russ asks
people to follow it for license approvals. I say anyone can talk about
just about anything they have to date unless the list owner cares
enough to boot em. Look, that's easy to implement too...

Also, and I don't mean this snarky at all, thread killing is really
easy in just about every mail reader or web based email you might
find.

Chris

On 9/13/07, Scott Shattuck <idearat@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I agree that discussions regarding specifics are inevitable given the
> culture in question. The point I was trying, however poorly, to put
> forth was the need to structure the mailing list(s) so that there is
> at least one list that is focused purely on the actionable events.
>
> Perhaps that's this list, perhaps it's license-actions@opensource.org
> (to be created), perhaps neither. But the original problem statement
> from Brian et. al. was that this list is already so full of things I
> "can just delete" that I'm in danger of simply deleting my
> subscription out of disgust rather than continue to wade through it all.
>
> At a minimum, structuring list discussions around a specific action
> point (we're going to reject license X because it violates OSI #10)
> in a strict format would make it easy for users to a) set up filters
> regarding specific licenses (I could care less about the GPL3
> thanks), b) set up filters specific to certain actions (please show
> me all calls for votes), etc. In short, structuring titles at a
> minimum to fit certain requirements would make automating the noise
> filtering much easier for those of us who are interested but can't
> make a career of hitting the delete button.
>
> ss
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 13, 2007, at 11:49 AM, Grayg Ralphsnyder wrote:
>
> > I agree with Chris, there are a lot of arms and legs that are
> > relevant to the main body / topic.  Possibly modifying the message
> > subject line with a hyphen and a word or two to describe the sub-
> > point or supporting argument, etc.  Then those that do not want to
> > read the 'off-topic' materials can just delete them.
> >
> > grayg ralphsnyder
> >
> > Chris Travers wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 9/10/07, *Scott Shattuck* <Scott.Shattuck@gmail.com
> >> <mailto:Scott.Shattuck@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>     +10000
> >>
> >>
> >>     I might even go so far as to suggest that only messages
> >> specifically
> >>     relevant to the following points be acceptable:
> >>
> >>     1) a new license or license revision is being submitted;
> >>     2) a previously submitted license/revision is being withdrawn;
> >>     3) a submitted license is being questioned relative to
> >> conformance
> >>     with a specific OSI clause
> >>
> >>
> >> How can these be addressed without discussing sub-points,
> >> supporting arguments, etc? Wouldn't your proposal provide for
> >> approval of licenses with less understanding of what they actually
> >> mean? Is that a good thing?
> >>
> >>
> >> Best Wishes,
> >> Chris Travers
>
>


-- 
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com