Allow read-only members on foundation-board list
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
OpenStack Core Infrastructure |
Invalid
|
Medium
|
Stefano Maffulli |
Bug Description
One of the things the Board's "Transparency Working Group" would like to do/investigate is opening up the foundation-board mailing list. See e.g. https:/
What I think makes sense is:
* move the existing foundation-board archives aside
* allow anyone to join the list in read-only mode
* only the existing members should be allowed to post
* non-members can reply to foundation-board messages on the foundation list
* the new foundation-board archives should be public
To make the list open and read-only to everyone, but read-write the existing members, we'd:
* set the "Moderation" flag: http://
* set behaviour for all moderated users to "Reject" in "Privacy options->Sender filters": http://
* explain that moderated users should reply to the foundation list: http://
* change the welcome message to explain the moderation policy: http://
* unset the mod bit for all existing members in "Membership management"
(thanks to Dave Neary for those suggestions here: http://
The main issue is what to do with the existing archives. The easiest thing would be if we could:
* copy the current mailing list, its membership and archives to a new list e.g. 'foundation-
* hide this list from lists.openstack.org
* existing board members can log in and review the old archives if they wish
* remove the existing archives from the foundation-board list
* maybe at some point we will clean confidential information from the old archives and re-instate them for the foundation-board list
openstack-infra folks - is this feasible? can anyone help with dealing with the existing archives or give me access to do that?
Changed in openstack-ci: | |
status: | New → Triaged |
importance: | Undecided → Medium |
milestone: | none → havana |
Changed in openstack-ci: | |
assignee: | nobody → Stefano Maffulli (smaffulli) |
To be clear - I don't think we're totally ready to pull the trigger on this yet, since I'd like to give board members and the transparency WG more chance to consider the proposal. Very interested to here whether folks think this is a feasible plan, though.