a plea

[Scott Shattuck]

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 at 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 at gmail.com  
>> <mailto:Scott.Shattuck at 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     2) a previously submitted license/revision is being withdrawn;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