Re: gnome-hackers moderation

[Behdad Esfahbod <behdad behdad org>]

On 05/14/2009 05:42 PM, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 17:59 +0200, Christian Rose wrote:
> > Someone recently asked why his subscription request to the
> > gnome-hackers list was still pending.
> >
> > I answered that besides his request, there are currently 24 other
> > pending subscription requests to the gnome-hackers list.
> >
> > I know of no list policy for subscriptions to the gnome-hackers list,
> > other than the fact that the gnome-hackers list is not an open list
> > and the list subscription is moderated. But nowhere does it, to the
> > best of my knowledge, say *how* subscription requests should be
> > moderated and treated. This is why I leave the gnome-hackers list
> > subscription request moderation for others to decide, in contrast to
> > message moderation to the list. There are two other list admins who
> > perhaps know more than me about the gnome-hackers subscription
> > moderation policy.
> gnome-hackers has always been this way, since it was the private forum
> for hackers when it was created. Not sure if that still applies, since
> it is not used that much lately, so not sure what we should do.

Hi everyone,

We talked about it during the board meeting today.  We feel that the best 
action at this point is to shut down gnome-hackers and tell everyone to 
subscribe to the open desktop-devel-list instead.  Shout if you object, or 
we'll go forward with this plan next week.

Cheers,
behdad

> As for managing the subscription list, I myself as maintainer of the
> list, don't mind at all if anyone with admin rights gets to it and
> accepts / rejects subscriptions, so feel free to do it (unless some
> other maintainer disagrees loudly :-) As for which ones to accept, in
> all the years I've been maintaining this list (very badly lately, it
> seems based on the huge subscription list :), I approved requests based
> on knowing or not who the requester was, so unless you find a better use
> for this list or just decide to drop it, I'd suggest just keeping up
> with that policy.