From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 502C11F464 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 14:23:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728008AbfKYOXw (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Nov 2019 09:23:52 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:59954 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1727655AbfKYOXw (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Nov 2019 09:23:52 -0500 Received: (qmail 26409 invoked by uid 109); 25 Nov 2019 14:23:52 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 14:23:52 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 18969 invoked by uid 111); 25 Nov 2019 14:27:52 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 09:27:52 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 09:23:51 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Eric Wong Cc: Emily Shaffer , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Announcing git-mentoring@googlegroups.com Message-ID: <20191125142351.GE494@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20191114194708.GD60198@google.com> <20191122203127.GA5292@dcvr> <20191122231921.GB101478@google.com> <20191123001749.GA12923@dcvr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191123001749.GA12923@dcvr> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 12:17:49AM +0000, Eric Wong wrote: > > Hm, this is a little circular, right? Part of the rationale for keeping > > viewing limited was "that way it's not visible to generic search > > engines". > > Sorry if I wasn't clear. My points were: > > 1) limiting visibility harmful to helpfulness > > 2) trusting "members" to keep potentially embarrasing posts > away from the public eye is unrealistic. Let posters > maintain anonymity or pseudonymity for themselves. I think it's trying to find a tradeoff, though. The point isn't to guard sensitive information. It's to have a less intimidating forum for people to converse in. Even though anybody from the public _could_ join and read them, keeping them out of most web searches may be more comfortable. Likewise, members of the group _could_ exfiltrate all of the posts and show them publicly. But in practice that's unlikely. Note that I'm guessing at what others would find more comfortable or less intimidating. Obviously I'm quite happy to speak my mind all over public mailing lists. ;) But the point is to give a forum for people who aren't. I think this setup matches the mentoring list in other orgs. E.g. Outreachy itself, though there I think you have to actually be an intern to see the posts. We could moderate membership to the mentor list but it seems like a hassle for little gain. -Peff