[committee] [wheel] Archiving of wheel list

[Felix von Perger]

Moved to committee list since it's not really wheel- or tech-related 
beyond the name of the mailing list in question.

I was thinking of enabling private archives, since it's a private list 
anyway, and anything sent to the list is insecure to the extent that the 
archives are equally accessible to someone with root access as another 
person's inbox.

Bob's point is fair - although I don't see any reason why committee-only 
needs to be an alias and non-archived, beyond the fact it is already set 
up like that way and is therefore convenient.

One reason to enable private archives is that past discussions can be 
used for later reference by current/future wheel/committee members, 
which has many possible (beneficial) uses. If anything, having those 
private archives is especially important since they could contain useful 
insights on how unusual or sensitive issues have been dealt with in the 
past, where public records are either nonexistent or deliberately 
censored. Certainly with committee, this would be useful in combination 
with the existing public committee archives, wiki, etc.

Also it acknowledges that people should have to uphold a certain 
standard of communication in those (official?) channels on the basis it 
is potentially subject to future scrutiny. I guess it's not really 
transparent unless it's actually public, but you can't necessarily 
guarantee that will be possible depending on what sort of sensitive 
stuff there is. In any case, it's probably a step in the right direction.

I think sending stuff to the correct lists (public or private) is a 
separate matter. But yes, for the most part, anything that should be 
public is sent to the public lists where it is then also publicly 
archived. This conversation for example (!)

Part of the reason for asking is that doorgroup has (always?) been 
privately archived. Since the mailman makes it easy to enable archives I 
figured why not turn it on for wheel too.

- Felix

On 15/5/19 6:23 pm, James French wrote:
> I've gone back a little further in my own archive and there is some 
> stuff on this list that is sensitive (domain passwords, security 
> incidents etc). Although infrequent that stuff is what the list is 
> notionally for, ergo private. Reality is this is a very quiet list the 
> majority of the time, most discussion happens on tech@
>
> Arguably the "sensitive" stuff includes conversations about new wheel 
> members, but in the interests of transparency, I don't really have an 
> objection to making that public.
>
> Having said that, you're right too though Felix, by and large most of 
> what's come here is stuff back and forth with ITS, and that isn't 
> particularly sensitive most of the time (except when it is). Tech 
> would arguably be a better place for that too (except when it isn't).
>
> I don't mind the idea of a /private/ archive, as it might be helpful 
> to new wheel members. The concern is just passwords going into it.
>
> I actually wouldn't object to putting the various committee aliases 
> (or just exec if there were concerns) on this list. Historically 
> there's been a critical mass of committee on this list anyway that 
> it's never been too big of an issue.
>
> F.
>
> On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 14:56, Andrew Adamson <bob at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au 
> <mailto:bob at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au>> wrote:
>
>     We don't archive wheel@ for the same reasons that committee-only
>     is not
>     archived - anything that should be public already is because it
>     has been
>     sent to tech@ instead.
>
>     Andrew Adamson
>     bob at ucc.asn.au <mailto:bob at ucc.asn.au>
>
>     |"If you can't beat them, join them, and then beat them."           |
>     | ---Peter's Laws           |
>
>     On Wed, 15 May 2019, Felix von Perger wrote:
>
>     > Hi all,
>     >
>     > Something I'd like to consider, and would like some input from
>     those it
>     > affects - is there any problem enabling archiving of the wheel
>     mailing list?
>     >
>     > While I've been here, I haven't seen anything which shouldn't be
>     kept
>     > on-record (even if private/confidential). Given that I've not
>     been here very
>     > long I'd like to hear if there are any particular reasons why
>     the archives are
>     > disabled, or barriers to enabling the archive function.
>     >
>     > Cheers,
>     >
>     > Felix
>     >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/pipermail/committee/attachments/20190515/d6447a9e/attachment.htm