Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 05:04:31 +0400
From: Solar Designer <>
Subject: Re: distributions at l.fd.o

On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 09:59:30AM -0600, Vincent Danen wrote:
> If distributions@ is desktop-focused *only*, then both lists make sense.
> But if the stuff on xvendor is also on topic there, then I'm not sure
> how wise it is to run both lists.

Right now, "stuff on xvendor is also on topic" on "distributions".
I thought that this could change (which would be reasonable to me), but
perhaps not.

> The response that Lucas gave us pretty much indicated that
> distributions@ was an "anything goes" list, or did I misread it?

I understood it the same way.

> It would be nice if Lucas had said that desktop-related stuff was the
> focus of distributions@.  Maybe we need to nose around in the archives
> and if it seems like it's all been desktop-related so far,

No, it was not limited to desktop-specific stuff.  Recently discussed
non-desktop issues include gcc 4.3, /etc/localtime, build script / spec
file licensing.

> maybe "infiltrate" the list and let them know that we're here

I've already notified them of xvendor:

> for the non-desktop stuff?

I didn't say it explicitly on the "distributions" list yet - because we
did not make that decision - but it was indirectly mentioned via the
link to my xvendor posting.  No-one on "distributions" responded, which
may suggest that they're just fine with using their existing list, and
this is understandable.

> Or we could just mention to Lucas that 98% of what
> has been posted on that list has been desktop-related

This is not the case.

> and see if he minds if we post an "intro" to xvendor on the other list

I kind of did that already.  I did not ask for permission, which I had
hesitated about a bit, but my reasoning was that it would also be
impolite to discuss the issue of us having two similar lists in here
without members of the other list even being aware of it.  Besides, I
had other on-topic stuff to mention at the same time.

> (and do something like mutual "advertising" of the lists so that
> they're not seen as competitors but as mutually supporting).

I think that would work if Lucas and members of both lists agreed to
separate the lists by topic, but this did not happen.  Maybe mutual
support is also possible in joining forces for advertising the lists (or
either list or one list at a time) to desirable potential members.  For
example, I could announce the xvendor list to those who have subscribed
for Openwall announcements (which I did) - but I would hesitate to
"spam" them about a list that is not run by Openwall.  Once we're done
with that, we could actually join the lists - perhaps by making
"distributions" the currently active list, and keeping the xvendor setup
as a "hot spare".

Also, would it actually be appropriate to share the xvendor subscriber
base with Lucas, to have those people auto-subscribed to "distributions"?
Any objections?  (I have not decided to do that yet, but I am asking
this question proactively.)

I did a similar thing for oss-security initially, with the difference
being that the e-mail addresses stayed within Openwall infrastructure.

Any thoughts on the above, or other ideas, would be welcome.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Please check out the xvendor mailing list charter.