Re: [patch] maintainers: remove moderated arm list

From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Erik Mouw <erik@harddisk-recovery.com>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>, Domen Puncer <domen@coderock.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] maintainers: remove moderated arm list
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:25:15 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050104092515.B9409@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050104090057.GA2035@infradead.org>; from hch@infradead.org on Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 09:00:57AM +0000

On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 09:00:57AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 09:54:37AM +0100, Erik Mouw wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 06:54:38PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > 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.

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.

-- 
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 core