On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:06:32 +0100, "Cees de Groot" <cg at cdegroot.com>
said:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 12:50:09 +0100, Alexander Lazarevi&#263;  
> <Alexander at lazarevic.de> wrote:
> 
> > I think the teams should be granted some privacy (!= secrecy) eg. to  
> > discuss controversial topics.
> My idea was to give every team their mailing list. Public archive, but  
> reasonable privacy.

Whew, I was just about to post that I thought each team should have its
own mailing list, but I wasn't sure if Cees would be up for it. :)  I
assume you will be handing out squeakfoundation.org (Mailman) mailing
lists to the teams that want them?

Anyway, I think that's an excellent approach, giving a balance between
some privacy (by not being on squeak-dev) but not complete secrecy.

Holding all discussions for a team on squeak-dev is unworkable, IMO,
even if you added [tag]s.  And a swiki is an excellent place to keep a
team's summary of current direction, but it is *not* a replacement for a
mailing list.  And having a team work completely in secrecy via private
email is not a good thing either.

One issue is whether the mailing list should have read-only public
access, with list membership controlled by the team leader, or whether
it should just be a completely public list.  If the former, anyone
should still be able to join by announcing their interest on squeak-dev.
 (And if they caused problems the team leader would have the ability to
remove them from the mailing list.)

> People who subscribe on the list are expected to play 
> as team members, mostly that would mean that they'd expected to do actual 
> work. People who subscribe to the list, shout and yell, but never deliver 
> any actual work should rightfully be kicked off ;).

Yep.  Although in some cases you might have a real "guru" on the team
who cannot do a lot of work but can dispense valuable wisdom, such
members would still be useful.

> If team members really want to discuss things in private (always
> possible,  
> especially when there's friction etcetera), email is the way to go; I  
> think we should discourage private discussions so certainly we should not 
> add any infrastructure for it.

Agreed.

- Doug