[haiku-development] Re: RFC: @haiku-os.org email address policy
- From: Niels Reedijk <niels.reedijk@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:38:34 +0100
Hello Andreas,
2010/1/18 Andreas Färber <andreas.faerber@xxxxxx>:
> Hey Niels,
>
> Am 16.01.2010 um 17:22 schrieb Niels Reedijk:
>
>> 2010/1/14 Niels Reedijk <niels.reedijk@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>>
>>> Hello guys,
>>>
>>> I've updated the document to incorporate the latest points of
>>> discussion. You can still find it at:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AXx-ww0PQt9LZGdmbnEzNmZfNjJkZ3pxODVncw&hl=nl
>>>
>>> Let me know whether I missed things and whether the policy is acceptable.
>>
>> I would like for anyone that participated in this thread to sign off
>> on the policy.
>>
>> I still would like to hear from Matt, Andreas, Hike, Urias, Oliver
>> R-D, Jorge, Stephan, Rene, Jêrome, Scott and Pulkomandy.
>
> Thanks for picking up the dev.haiku-os.org bit.
>
> No veto rights on my part but two more comments:
>
> i) I'm still a bit uncomfortable with the formulation of the no-spokesperson
> rule and would suggest to clarify this.
> Any action could always be mis-perceived by someone. Maybe add some DOs and
> DON'Ts? Like, is the word "we" off limits? ;)
Hmmm. I see how it is vague, but at the same time I don't know how to
formulate it better without either becoming too specific. I would not
like to add examples because they are would probably be too vague and
at the same time might seem too inclusive. Feel free to suggest
another wording though.
> ii) What's the policy on changing the policy? :)
> Should the need arise after the initial discussion to tighten or loosen the
> rules of conduct or privacy, will the account holders be informed, is there
> any objection period planned, etc.
Change of policy... I guess that would be the 'normal' stuff around
here. Proposals on this list and then either a change based on
consensus (like the current policy) or a change based on a vote. I
don't think we should build in a self-referential clause in it to
provide email addresses on policy changes. I think the consensus/vote
approach will provide enough buffers against too radical changes.
N>
Other related posts:
