This is the mail archive of the cygwin-developers@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: cygwin-developers archive password protected


Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 10:30:28PM -0000, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> I read cyg-dev via the archives for about a year, before being invited to
>> join. It was a very useful and interesting source of information.
>
> Right.  And, IIRC, you asked for some kind of read-only access to the
> list. I can only imagine how that would have worked if I allowed that.
> We'd be getting all sorts of private email or email cc'ed to cygwin at
cygwin.

Yes, I didn't really think that through fully, did I :-)

>> Already, we have some postings on cygwin@ from the understandably miffed,
>> and even a workaround for access by ftp.
>
> If someone wants to read the developers list then they just have to follow
> the rules and join this list.  It's not a huge hardship.

The published requirements for joining are somewhat... daunting.

Certainly, I did not fulfil the criteria when I began to read the archives.

Even now, it will probably be nearer the end of 2003 by the time I have a
code contribution to Cygwin.

>> Obviously, Chris being swamped in personal mail
>
> I am by no stretch of the imagination being swamped.  I just don't want
> to be randomly bothered by what should be a private discussion.

Right, you shouldn't have to be bothered with that.

> My last go around was from someone who was miffed because I didn't take
> kindly to him sending me personal email questions.  His response was
> that since I'd made statements in a public forum, I should expect people
> to send me email.  Ok.  So, while this has never been a public forum, I
> can at least easily limit that source of confusion.

It would be a shame for the idiots to cause the withdrawal of access from
the intelligent public.

> We didn't set up cygwin-developers as a service to the community.  We set
> it up as a mechanism for discussing changes with people who are a few
> hundred steps above the standard cygwin at cygwin list.  The fact that
> some people liked to eavesdrop via the web is really not a huge selling
> point for me.

Does replacing "eavesdrop" with "listen attentively (and silently) for
interesting information, and news on the future of Cygwin" make you feel any
better about it?

> Since people like to point to linux and say "Do things that way", I should
> point out that there is a private list for kernel developers that is not
> available to the public.  That is what I want cygwin-developers to be.

Can we explore alternatives that still preserve the right atmosphere for
focussed developer discussion?

I'm assuming this next paragraph is a comment on my
cygwin-developer-user-interface idea:

> I'm not interested in opening up another cygwin list where people can
> send "I can't resize setup.exe under cyg!" complaints.  They can use the
> cygwin list for that.  I have zero confidence that any other list that I
> set up would not be abused so I'm not (with maybe one exception) going
> to be setting up any new cygwin lists anytime soon.
>
> The one possible exception might be that I think maybe cygwin's setup
> needs a list of its own.  I'd be willing to do that.

Um? What has setup.exe to do with this?

Do you think my idea has no chance of success? Is it the work in setting it
up that concerns you?

I think it is a reasonably safe way of eliminating bother for you and
maintaining public access.

Max.



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]