Date: 26 Mar 2002 00:01:55 -0800 From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Tom Rhodes <darklogik@pittgoth.com> Cc: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: docs/35378: Handbook has inaccurate description of freebsd-security list Message-ID: <bjvgbjkb9o.gbj@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <200203251830.g2PIU4h68775@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <200203251830.g2PIU4h68775@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tom Rhodes <darklogik@pittgoth.com> writes: > I reread this pr, and feel strongly that it can be closed. > > Opions? Assuming that you don't want to do more research on it, you might give the PR author a chance to survey opinion on -security and report back. I didn't notice -security in the CC list and it seems like something that they should have some say about. My 2 cents: The -security charter has a few more words than the description's "security issues", but is nearly as nebulous. It seems fitting that the list should get a wide variety of threads. I don't know how charter changes get made around here, but it seems to me that list charters shouldn't get changed without some kind of survey of readers. If they want less variety of messages, then they should "authorize" a change of the charter AND the description. I'll also note that the list is in the "general" list of lists, not the "technical list" of lists. The PR's changes, if made, should probably also be accompanied by a move of the list to "technical" list of lists. Rant: The term "technical discussion", which gets bandied about many of the charters, seems to apply to any list except maybe -chat (and there only in the charter, not the list!), and leaves me wondering what is really meant. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bjvgbjkb9o.gbj>