apastsya
commented
13 years ago Comment created by pcurran:
Throughout the document we try to specify what Expert Groups should do without specifying how they should do it.
So, for example, we do not suggest or recommend having an Experts and an Observers list, with mail from the first copied to the second, as we are have with this JSR.
For this reason, I don't think it's appropriate to recommend a moderated list. That might well be how people choose to meet the requirements, but depending on the collaboration platform the EG chooses, it may or not be convenient or even possible. (As it happens, java.net does not seem to support the concept of moderation for some subscribers and not for others. I certainly wouldn't want to have to approve every single posting to the Experts list.)
The important part of the mailing-list section of the document is the requirement that all substantive business (and we provide examples to indicate what this includes) should be carried out in public. So long as EGs meet this requirement, how they do so is their business.
I agree that the use of the term "should" in "Non-substantive administrative matters ... should be excluded from the public mailing list" implies that we are recommending two lists rather than one.
I'd be happy to change this to "may" in order to make this sentence more neutral.
Jira issue originally created by user starksm64:
In 1.1.1 Mailing Lists, lines 202-214 of the http://java.net/projects/jsr348/downloads/download/Working%20documents/JCP%20NEXT%202.8-10AUG2011-Clean.pdf version of the process doc, there is a discussion about why a private mailing list is needed for minor admin issues. This seems overstated and based on the following comment from the closed JSR348-40 issue:
{quote} I don't understand why we cannot simply have one moderated list.
EG members would have automatic read/write access to the list non-EG members would have read access to the list and all write access would be moderated (allowed upon approval) Since all debates are tracked via the issue tracker, observers have the alternative option of commenting on the issue report.
I suggest this setup because it's used almost universally for open source projects and has proven to work (and scale). Plus, anyone familiar with open discussions will understand this model.
Sending discussions from one list to another, in my opinion, is just making matters more complex than necessary. {quote}
is seen as suspicious. I would suggest a much simplified section that would allow for a purely administrative list if that is how the EG decides it needs to conduct business, but does not advocate it.
"All substantive business must be carried out on a public mailing list designated by the Spec Lead. The purpose of this list is to keep observers aware of important issues. The preferred way to conduct the mailing list is a moderated list.
If the Expert Group uses a mailing list writable only by Expert Group members, then the EG must also provide a publicly readable and writable email list or a forum to enable feedback and comments from the public."