Transparency, Community? (was Re: List-Id Changed why? )

[Matthew East]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

* Peter Garrett:
> What I find *much* more interesting (and disturbing) than technical
> filtering details is this:
> 
> Who made this change, why was it made, and where is the discussion of the
> implications?
> 
> Considering some of the discussions of the past few weeks, this looks
> suspiciously like an imposed direction by someone, or some people, who
> happen to have an opinion about the function of the list - and who
> apparently don't care if anyone has a different opinion.
> 
> I ask: What are the implications of changing the list ID in this manner ?
> Why was this not done in consultation with the list subscribers ?
> 
> Some person or persons unknown decided unilaterally to remove "
> discussion" from the list description, without so much as a polite
> question to the list itself. 

Some background. I emailed the list administrators, asking to change the
topic to make it clear that this is a technical support list (as
distinct from sounder, which is the discussion list). The administrators
then implemented the wording.

You'll find some information about the division of topics on these lists
in this document, which was produced (some time ago) after consultation
with the Ubuntu Community Council.

http://www.ubuntu.com/community/lists/etiquette#head-88abe2c4b42c90b51809db80d050efd1c2cb022a

> What happened to openness ? Yes, I'm annoyed, and I, and I hope others,
> will object to this move - not because of objections to having a
> "technical support only" list, but because of the way this was done.

Please don't react so strongly to this - there are more important things
to focus on in the Ubuntu community. There is no stifling of discussion,
it is simply made clear that there are two lists for two purposes -
discussion of Ubuntu related topics should take place on the sounder
list, while technical support should take place on this list. You've
suggested the list subscribers should be consulted, but that's frankly
not very realistic in circumstances where there are thousands of
subscribers, and people will simply not agree. The delineation as
described in the etiquette page, as approved by the Community Council,
seems to me to be the

If you've got any more concerns about this subject, I think the best
place to discuss it would be at a Community Council meeting, or on the
sounder list (included in this mail). Please continue the discussion there.

Matt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFE9Jy/tSaF0w5rBv8RAjS9AJ9QIWWr1jEYrHjSJ2NzP1jtbsJ0wACdFnRr
8IKrqKbDacRme4SruOWJpMw=
=i9TK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----