maintainers: remove moderated arm list
PATCH 1/1 maintainers: remove moderated arm list
If you are subscribed to it, you already know the address. If you are not, you probably don't want bounces.
MAINTAINERS +0 -3
@@ -296,7 +296,6 @@ ARM/PT DIGITAL BOARD PORT P: Stefan Eletzhofer M: [email protected] -L: [email protected] W: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ S: Maintained
@@ -309,7 +308,6 @@ ARM/STRONGARM110 PORT P: Russell King M: [email protected] -L: [email protected] W: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ S: Maintained
@@ -1788,7 +1786,6 @@ PXA2xx SUPPORT P: Nicolas Pitre M: [email protected] -L: [email protected] S: Maintained QNX4 FILESYSTEM
Quoted 2 lines · Domen Puncer
If you are subscribed to it, you already know the address. If you are not, you probably don't want bounces.
I don't particularly agree with this policy of removing such documentation, especially as I have a good reason to implement such policy on my mailing lists.
If we must, I guess it's fine, but I expect *you* to provide the support to people to people who don't know where to go for it if *you* remove this.
Signature · 4 lines
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 PCMCIA - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/
2.6 Serial coreQuoted 10 lines · Russell King
Quoted 2 lines · Domen Puncer
If you are subscribed to it, you already know the address. If you are not, you probably don't want bounces.
I don't particularly agree with this policy of removing such documentation, especially as I have a good reason to implement such policy on my mailing lists.
If we must, I guess it's fine, but I expect *you* to provide the support to people to people who don't know where to go for it if *you* remove this.
Well... there is webpage URL.
How about adding a new flag to MAINTAINERS (ie. "LM", for list-moderated)?
Domen
Quoted 2 lines · Domen Puncer
If you are subscribed to it, you already know the address. If you are not, you probably don't want bounces.
If you are not you want to know where it is so you can subscribe. This patch should not be applied IMHO.
Alan
Quoted 10 lines · Russell King
Quoted 2 lines · Domen Puncer
If you are subscribed to it, you already know the address. If you are not, you probably don't want bounces.
I don't particularly agree with this policy of removing such documentation, especially as I have a good reason to implement such policy on my mailing lists.
If we must, I guess it's fine, but I expect *you* to provide the support to people to people who don't know where to go for it if *you* remove this.
I'm sometimes doing patches that cover many files, and I want to Cc the patches to the developers in question.
If after sending 10 patches I get 5 "this is a subscribers-only list" mails, I'm not going to subscribe to 5 lists, forward the patches to them and unsubscribe again after this (and repeat this if there's some discussion regarding one of these patches).
In my experience, the best solution is a list policy that allows subscribers to post and requires moderator approval for non-members. This policy that is already used by several lists listed in MAINTAINERS is IMHO a good compromise between avoiding spam and allowing non-subscribers to post to the list.
cu
Adrian
Signature · 4 lines
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon SeedQuoted 12 lines · Adrian Bunk
Quoted 2 lines · Russell King
If we must, I guess it's fine, but I expect *you* to provide the support to people to people who don't know where to go for it if *you* remove this.
I'm sometimes doing patches that cover many files, and I want to Cc the patches to the developers in question.
If after sending 10 patches I get 5 "this is a subscribers-only list" mails, I'm not going to subscribe to 5 lists, forward the patches to them and unsubscribe again after this (and repeat this if there's some discussion regarding one of these patches).
Quoted 5 lines
In my experience, the best solution is a list policy that allows subscribers to post and requires moderator approval for non-members. This policy that is already used by several lists listed in
MAINTAINERSis IMHO a good compromise between avoiding spam and allowing non-subscribers to post to the list.
Well, that's precisely what happens with these lists - your post ends up in the moderator approval queue. They do generally find their way from there into the appropriate peoples mailboxes (iow, mine).
Signature · 4 lines
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 PCMCIA - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/
2.6 Serial coreQuoted 7 lines · Adrian Bunk
I'm sometimes doing patches that cover many files, and I want to Cc the patches to the developers in question.
If after sending 10 patches I get 5 "this is a subscribers-only list" mails, I'm not going to subscribe to 5 lists, forward the patches to them and unsubscribe again after this (and repeat this if there's some discussion regarding one of these patches).
Note that Mailman lists allow you to be subscribed without getting mail from the list (except the monthly notice on mailman day).
Erik
Signature · 2 lines
+-- Erik Mouw -- www.harddisk-recovery.com -- +31 70 370 12 90 -- | Lab address: Delftechpark 26, 2628 XH, Delft, The Netherlands
Quoted 11 lines · Erik Mouw
Quoted 7 lines · Adrian Bunk
I'm sometimes doing patches that cover many files, and I want to Cc the patches to the developers in question.
If after sending 10 patches I get 5 "this is a subscribers-only list" mails, I'm not going to subscribe to 5 lists, forward the patches to them and unsubscribe again after this (and repeat this if there's some discussion regarding one of these patches).
Note that Mailman lists allow you to be subscribed without getting mail from the list (except the monthly notice on mailman day).
Which is still totally annoying. I don't want to use some damn web (or even email-based) interface just to send a single mail to some list.
Quoted 11 lines · Erik Mouw
Quoted 7 lines · Adrian Bunk
I'm sometimes doing patches that cover many files, and I want to Cc the patches to the developers in question.
If after sending 10 patches I get 5 "this is a subscribers-only list" mails, I'm not going to subscribe to 5 lists, forward the patches to them and unsubscribe again after this (and repeat this if there's some discussion regarding one of these patches).
Note that Mailman lists allow you to be subscribed without getting mail from the list (except the monthly notice on mailman day).
Which you can also turn off.
Signature · 4 lines
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 PCMCIA - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/
2.6 Serial coreQuoted 10 lines · Christoph Hellwig
Quoted 9 lines · Erik Mouw
Quoted 7 lines · Adrian Bunk
I'm sometimes doing patches that cover many files, and I want to Cc the patches to the developers in question.
If after sending 10 patches I get 5 "this is a subscribers-only list" mails, I'm not going to subscribe to 5 lists, forward the patches to them and unsubscribe again after this (and repeat this if there's some discussion regarding one of these patches).
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Note that Mailman lists allow you to be subscribed without getting mail from the list (except the monthly notice on mailman day).
Which is still totally annoying. I don't want to use some damn web (or even email-based) interface just to send a single mail to some list.
In that case, you can personally choose not to send mail there anymore. It's completely up to you. No one is forcing you to send email to any address.
You may wish to have 100% open communities everywhere, but unfortunately we live in the real world where politicians get to make laws for us, and we have to abide by them. If this means that people have to respect peoples rights to privacy, and inform them when their privacy may not be assured (and not violate that right to privacy without first doing so.)
I don't care if you personally agree with that or not. That's not what it's about. It's about taking reasonable steps to cover ones own ass and the communities ass to ensure survival in silly-law environments.
In such an environment, there are two options to this:
1. have a moderated mailing list with public archives where non-subscribers are informed that their message can't be accepted because x, y, and z.
2. have an open mailing list with private archives and a method to ensure that there are _no_ archive sites subscribed.
(2) is an impossibility, which only leaves (1).
Remember - there *are* people who use law as a method to make money. I think that recent events with a certain company in the US prove that point nicely.
Think about it. And let me remind you that I don't care whether you agree or not.
Signature · 4 lines
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 PCMCIA - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/
2.6 Serial coreQuoted 3 lines · Russell King
In that case, you can personally choose not to send mail there anymore. It's completely up to you. No one is forcing you to send email to any address.
I don't plan to force anyone to do anything with their mailinglists. But we shouldn't mention lists with stupid policies as maintainer contacts.
Quoted 10 lines
You may wish to have 100% open communities everywhere, but unfortunately we live in the real world where politicians get to make laws for us, and we have to abide by them. If this means that people have to respect peoples rights to privacy, and inform them when their privacy may not be assured (and not violate that right to privacy without first doing so.)
I don't care if you personally agree with that or not. That's not what it's about. It's about taking reasonable steps to cover ones own ass and the communities ass to ensure survival in silly-law environments.
Maybe you should offshore your lists to conuntries with saner laws (or at least to less obedient people..)
Quoted 5 lines · Adrian Bunk
In my experience, the best solution is a list policy that allows subscribers to post and requires moderator approval for non-members. This policy that is already used by several lists listed in
MAINTAINERSis IMHO a good compromise between avoiding spam and allowing non-subscribers to post to the list.
Sounds great, but _every single time_ I've ever gotten one of those "your message is awaiting moderation" messages from such a list, it's inevitably followed a few hours/days later by a "your message has been rejected" message. In every case, the message I sent was definitely a no-brainer to allow, so I can only guess that either the moderation system is broken, or the moderators are.
Are there actually any lists out there where this mechanism works properly?
As it is, it's even more annoying than an immediate rejection.
-miles
Signature · 4 lines
/\ /\
(^.^)
(")")
*This is the cute kitty virus, please copy it into your sig so it can spread.Quoted 2 lines
Are there actually any lists out there where this mechanism works properly?
the dri-devel list moderators seem to get it right, I haven't put my address in the moderator e-mail, and we still get things like Adrians patches through to the list....
Dave.
Quoted 6 lines · Miles Bader
Sounds great, but
_everysingletime_I've ever gotten one of those "your message is awaiting moderation" messages from such a list, it's inevitably followed a few hours/days later by a "your message has been rejected" message. In every case, the message I sent was definitely a no-brainer to allow, so I can only guess that either the moderation system is broken, or the moderators are.
It's not about sanity, it's about abiding the law (the UK Data Protection Act, in this particular case). As Russell King explained in this thread, there are such things as real life and politicians that make privacy laws.
On the linux-arm* lists, we make no difference in intention: if you're not subscribed, it means you didn't agree to your messages being publicly archived (i.e.: you didn't agree to your privacy being violated), and to avoid legal hassles later on, we can't accept your post.
The legal hassles I'm talking about are not a theoretical thing, there have been successful requests from posters to have their messages removed from other mailing lists archives in the past. Yes, I know that's stupid, and yes, I know a mailing list maintainer can't do anything against other people archiving his list, but the law says otherwise.
Note however, that messages with patches sent to the linux-arm-kernel list will get to the right person (i.e.: Russell).
Erik
linux-arm*-owner #2
Signature · 2 lines
+-- Erik Mouw -- www.harddisk-recovery.com -- +31 70 370 12 90 -- | Lab address: Delftechpark 26, 2628 XH, Delft, The Netherlands
Quoted 7 lines · Christoph Hellwig
Quoted 3 lines · Russell King
In that case, you can personally choose not to send mail there anymore. It's completely up to you. No one is forcing you to send email to any address.
I don't plan to force anyone to do anything with their mailinglists. But we shouldn't mention lists with stupid policies as maintainer contacts.
As Alan has already pointed out, there's more to the MAINTAINERS file than just pointing out to main line kernel developers where to send their patches.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
I don't care if you personally agree with that or not. That's not what it's about. It's about taking reasonable steps to cover ones own ass and the communities ass to ensure survival in silly-law environments.
Maybe you should offshore your lists to conuntries with saner laws (or at least to less obedient people..)
s/or at least to less obedient people/and offshore the list administrators as well/
People seem rather unwilling to do so because it's a hell of a lot of hastle to look after properly. The suggestion has been made in the past and always comes to nothing.
Signature · 4 lines
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 PCMCIA - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/
2.6 Serial coreQuoted 11 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Sounds great, but
_everysingletime_I've ever gotten one of those "your message is awaiting moderation" messages from such a list, it's inevitably followed a few hours/days later by a "your message has been rejected" message. In every case, the message I sent was definitely a no-brainer to allow, so I can only guess that either the moderation system is broken, or the moderators are.It's not about sanity, it's about abiding the law (the UK Data Protection Act, in this particular case). As Russell King explained in this thread, there are such things as real life and politicians that make privacy laws.
I've had this problem with many mailing lists not based in the UK, so presumably that particular stupidity doesn't apply to them. However sad the case of the arm lists, I'd like to know if there are more basic problems involved that could explain my experience.
It sounds like it would be an excellent idea not to host lists in the UK though...
-Miles
Quoted 9 lines · Miles Bader
Quoted 4 lines
It's not about sanity, it's about abiding the law (the UK Data Protection Act, in this particular case). As Russell King explained in this thread, there are such things as real life and politicians that make privacy laws.
I've had this problem with many mailing lists not based in the UK, so presumably that particular stupidity doesn't apply to them. However sad the case of the arm lists, I'd like to know if there are more basic problems involved that could explain my experience.
The Data Protection Act is the UK implementation of a European Union directive. All EU member states (should) have similar laws.
Quoted 2 lines
It sounds like it would be an excellent idea not to host lists in the UK though...
s/UK/EU/. Like Russell already said: so far nobody volunteered to host all EU lists plus their administrators off shore, so we have to live with it.
Erik
Signature · 2 lines
+-- Erik Mouw -- www.harddisk-recovery.com -- +31 70 370 12 90 -- | Lab address: Delftechpark 26, 2628 XH, Delft, The Netherlands
Quoted 19 lines · Russell King
Quoted 12 lines · Adrian Bunk
Quoted 2 lines · Russell King
If we must, I guess it's fine, but I expect *you* to provide the support to people to people who don't know where to go for it if *you* remove this.
I'm sometimes doing patches that cover many files, and I want to Cc the patches to the developers in question.
If after sending 10 patches I get 5 "this is a subscribers-only list" mails, I'm not going to subscribe to 5 lists, forward the patches to them and unsubscribe again after this (and repeat this if there's some discussion regarding one of these patches).
Quoted 5 lines
In my experience, the best solution is a list policy that allows subscribers to post and requires moderator approval for non-members. This policy that is already used by several lists listed in
MAINTAINERSis IMHO a good compromise between avoiding spam and allowing non-subscribers to post to the list.
Quoted 3 lines
Well, that's precisely what happens with these lists - your post ends up in the moderator approval queue. They do generally find their way from there into the appropriate peoples mailboxes (iow, mine).
OK, sorry, my comment was wrong.
I confused moderated with subscribers-only .
cu
Adrian
Signature · 4 lines
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon SeedQuoted 7 lines · Christoph Hellwig
Quoted 3 lines · Russell King
In that case, you can personally choose not to send mail there anymore. It's completely up to you. No one is forcing you to send email to any address.
I don't plan to force anyone to do anything with their mailinglists. But we shouldn't mention lists with stupid policies as maintainer contacts.
Agreed. Besides, there are _very_ effective solutions to the spam problem. man spamassassin.
Lee
Quoted 2 lines · Miles Bader
It sounds like it would be an excellent idea not to host lists in the UK though...
Its an EU wide thing, and various other countries (and I believe some US states).
Quoted 2 lines · Christoph Hellwig
Maybe you should offshore your lists to conuntries with saner laws (or at least to less obedient people..)
The european union data protection law prohibits such offshoring
Quoted 2 lines · Lee Revell
Agreed. Besides, there are _very_ effective solutions to the spam problem. man spamassassin.
You realise current generation spam generator tools actually grab and build spamassassin and then feed the spam through it adjusting it until it passes ?
Please don't tell mailing list admins how to run lists.
Quoted 10 lines · Alan Cox
Quoted 2 lines · Lee Revell
Agreed. Besides, there are _very_ effective solutions to the spam problem. man spamassassin.
You realise current generation spam generator tools actually grab and build spamassassin and then feed the spam through it adjusting it until it passes ?
Please don't tell mailing list admins how to run lists.
Apologies for the offtopic post.
Lee
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"Russell" == Russell King <[email protected]> writes:
Russell> On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 09:33:26AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig
Quoted 8 lines · Russell> wrote:
Quoted 8 lines
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 09:25:15AM +0000, Russell King wrote: > In that case, you can personally choose not to send mail there anymore. > It's completely up to you. No one is forcing you to send email to any > address.
I don't plan to force anyone to do anything with their mailinglists. But we shouldn't mention lists with stupid policies as maintainer contacts.
Russell> As Alan has already pointed out, there's more to the Russell> MAINTAINERS file than just pointing out to main line kernel Russell> developers where to send their patches.
Maybe it's time to have an additional entry in MAINTAINERS then - having fscked up lists listed in there equal to sane ones seems completely inappropriate. Requiring broken lists to marked as 'this list is b0rked, use it at your own leisure'. That would save users and developers from having to deal with the side effects of these fscked up lists.
Using your own argument, I don't care why a list is fscked, the fact is it's fscked and I don't want to have to waste my time on it.
Cheers,
Jes
Quoted 2 lines · Adrian Bunk
Quoted 1 line · Russell King
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 06:54:38PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
[...]
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
In my experience, the best solution is a list policy that allows subscribers to post and requires moderator approval for non-members. This policy that is already used by several lists listed in
MAINTAINERSis IMHO a good compromise between avoiding spam and allowing non-subscribers to post to the list.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Well, that's precisely what happens with these lists - your post ends up in the moderator approval queue. They do generally find their way from there into the appropriate peoples mailboxes (iow, mine).
OK, sorry, my comment was wrong.
I confused moderated with subscribers-only .
Subscribers-only lists hold messages from non-subscribers for owner approval. She might just axe them (o have them automatically axed), or forward them to the list, or let them sleep for a long time.
In any case, none of this is really relevant: Per the laws, if your message is forwarded to the list (automatically or by hand) you must have consented to it being published, and that means extra hassle for the list owner. She might just throw messages away for this reason.
Perhaps the best solution would be to add a line consenting to the publication of the message in any lists? Doesn't hurt much...
Signature · 4 lines
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
Quoted 4 lines · Jes Sorensen
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"Russell" == Russell King <[email protected]> writes:
Maybe it's time to have an additional entry in
MAINTAINERSthen - having fscked up lists listed in there equal to sane ones seems completely inappropriate.
We do that for individuals whether they are sane or complete loons 8)
I'm in favour of it letting you see if the list is subscription based.
Quoted 9 lines · Alan Cox
Quoted 4 lines · Jes Sorensen
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"Russell" == Russell King <[email protected]> writes:
Maybe it's time to have an additional entry in
MAINTAINERSthen - having fscked up lists listed in there equal to sane ones seems completely inappropriate.We do that for individuals whether they are sane or complete loons 8)
I'm in favour of it letting you see if the list is subscription based.
As am I. It's the "all lists must be open" fundamentalist brigade who are making a mountain out of this mole hill.
Signature · 4 lines
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 PCMCIA - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/
2.6 Serial coreHi!
Quoted 18 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Sounds great, but
_everysingletime_I've ever gotten one of those "your message is awaiting moderation" messages from such a list, it's inevitably followed a few hours/days later by a "your message has been rejected" message. In every case, the message I sent was definitely a no-brainer to allow, so I can only guess that either the moderation system is broken, or the moderators are.It's not about sanity, it's about abiding the law (the UK Data Protection Act, in this particular case). As Russell King explained in this thread, there are such things as real life and politicians that make privacy laws.
On the linux-arm* lists, we make no difference in intention: if you're not subscribed, it means you didn't agree to your messages being publicly archived (i.e.: you didn't agree to your privacy being violated), and to avoid legal hassles later on, we can't accept your post.
Quoted 6 lines
The legal hassles I'm talking about are not a theoretical thing, there have been successful requests from posters to have their messages removed from other mailing lists archives in the past. Yes, I know that's stupid, and yes, I know a mailing list maintainer can't do anything against other people archiving his list, but the law says otherwise.
What about allowing all messages with X-Okay-to-archive: yes header even without subscription?
Pavel
Signature · 2 lines
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers... ...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!