Re: Overseers list should not be public

[Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>]

On 09/22/2017 10:41 AM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Hi -
> 
>>    [...] It's a public list in name only.  It is a self-selecting
>>    process for getting on overseers which effectively makes it
>>    private. [...]
> 
> "public" and "private" is a false dichotomy in this context.
> Focus on actual characteristics:
> 
> - It is not publicized / well-known.
> - Its membership and archives are open. 
> 
> It's unusual.
> 
> (I agree we could use much better status / infrastructure-related
> published data, as a separate topic.)

It is germane. Particularly if we are going to outline next steps to
improve our infrastructure. I'm happy to plod along and implement the
next steps, but we need some kind of agreement on those.

Should we commit to an open list as Joseph suggests?

I would see the following as next steps:

* Add overseers to lists.html and describe what the list is for.
* Remove robots.txt entry for overseers mailing list.
* Create a wiki for base sourceware infrastructure.
* Enforce ACL via EditorsGroup to the wiki.
* Add a Status page in the wiki showing sourceware status.
* Update news.html to mention latest breakage.

I can help get these steps accomplished if we think, as a group of
volunteers, that this is a worthwhile endeavour.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.