Dear discussants,
It has come to my attention that our mailing lists are publicly archived at http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/project/fsfeurope.org/. The web@ and translators@ have faced similar issues in the past, if I remember correctly. On those lists it was decided that this is not desirable. I think that the FSFE should not allow this kind of archival as we have the functionality internally. However, since I am not qualified to decide... I am writing this. I think it would be best if the FSFE had a universal policy, but you are obviously welcome to mirror the discussion on the lists relevant to you.
Anyway, let's discuss it. Your thoughts, opinions, actions are?
Merry Christmas!
Faithfully,
"Heiki "Repentinus" Ojasild" repentinus@fsfe.org
It has come to my attention that our mailing lists are publicly archived at http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/project/fsfeurope.org/. The web@ and translators@ have faced similar issues in the past, if I remember correctly. On those lists it was decided that this is not desirable. I think that the FSFE should not allow this kind of archival as we have the functionality internally. However, since I am not qualified to decide... I am writing this. I think it would be best if the FSFE had a universal policy, but you are obviously welcome to mirror the discussion on the lists relevant to you.
Anyway, let's discuss it. Your thoughts, opinions, actions are?
Let it be.
Why does it matter? The discussion list is public for both subscription and archive. The internal archive is pipermail, which is not the nicest thing to use, to put it mildly.
Also, there are many other archives which also have a copy of the discussion list - gmane.org being one of the best. Like gmane, archiveorange seem to link back to the real list.
There's one main thing I see at archiveorange which could be considered objectionable. They show adverts if one's browser isn't set to forbid them and maybe they don't donate any surplus income to FSFE for this use of its resources.
So why did web@ and translators@ object?
Regards,
Hello,
On 27 December 2011 19:11, MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop wrote:
So why did web@ and translators@ object?
On a second glance, it seems that only web@ did. At least I cannot find anything about translators@ at the moment. Anyway, web@ archives are private. And no-one who bothered to discuss it on web@ wanted the archives to become public. Was not much more to that.
Since the site has quite a few lists archived I just figured it would be easier to notify people via the discussion@. I was not particularly enthusiastic with the prospective of checking all the lists' archival policies and notifying them all myself. And since I knew that not all lists have been happy about this, I figured it would be worth mentioning here.
Best regards,
* Heiki Repentinus Ojasild repentinus@fsfe.org [2011-12-27 20:19:35 +0000]:
On 27 December 2011 19:11, MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop wrote:
So why did web@ and translators@ object?
On a second glance, it seems that only web@ did. At least I cannot find anything about translators@ at the moment. Anyway, web@ archives are private. And no-one who bothered to discuss it on web@ wanted the archives to become public. Was not much more to that.
For the publically archived ones it is ok for me if they are archived in other places like Free Software list archives as well.
web@ and trsnlators@ have a archive which is for subscribers only. So they should not appear on public archives. That's why we contacted some archives in the past and asked for removal of those lists from their archives.
Regards, Matthias