Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Add "L: linux-arm@vger.kernel.org" to ARM sections

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

Hi!

> > > I haven't noticed a great rush of support for Joe's patch, which
> > > could mean that people here really aren't that bothered - maybe
> > > they just aren't "open list" zealots like some people seem to be.
> > 
> > I for one support open lists because subscriber-only lists are a PITA
> 
> Let me make this clear, yet again.  The lists are *not* subscriber only
> lists.  We do NOT reject non-subscriber posts for no reason what so ever
> (although it does seem to have happened, both Erik and myself both
> contend that we have never rejected a mailing intentionally without
> giving a reason - whether the original poster receives that reason is
> a function of how buggy mailman is.)

FAQ still states that cc-ing between l-k and lakml is
unwelcome. Reason why people prefer open lists is that you can cc both
l-k and the other relevant list.

> Moreover, vger is trying to replicate the setup we had back in the
> early 90s, which was found to be sub-optimal - we split the lists
> into kernel stuff, userspace stuff and toolchain stuff to reduce the
> amount of ignored postings - so that people specialising in ARM
> userspace didn't have to wade through all the (vastly more) kernel
> discussions.  Unfortunately, the new setup at vger would mean re-
> combining the lists.  Maybe that's another factor that people don't
> like?  Don't know.

I'd say that linux-arm@vger._kernel_.org is meant for kernel
discussion, so no, it is not trying to mix kernel&userspace.

> I have a theory.  People only complain about moderated mailing lists
> because they get messages telling them that their message has been
> caught.  If moderated mailing lists didn't send back that message,
> (and the queue was processed in a timely manner) people would not
> complain one bit.  So it is probably far better if I bend mailman
> such that it doesn't send out moderation messages - certainly to
> anyone called Pavel. ;)

Yes, those messages are indeed annoying.

If you can indeed process queue in timely manner, and remove FAQ entry
about not cc-ing between open lists and lakml, then yes, that would
probably be good-enough emulation of open list.
								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html