Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:33:10 +0200 From: lupe@lupe-christoph.de (Lupe Christoph) To: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> Cc: Jens Rehsack <rehsack@liwing.de>, freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Administrivia: Discussion - Making this list subscriber-only Message-ID: <20020828113310.GP26115@lupe-christoph.de> In-Reply-To: <200208272004.g7RK4gl5023435@grimreaper.grondar.org> References: <3D6BD999.10753D8E@liwing.de> <200208272004.g7RK4gl5023435@grimreaper.grondar.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday, 2002-08-27 at 21:04:42 +0100, Mark Murray wrote:
> > > Hmm. Most gurus will avoid it, and I suspect it will become a
> > > duplicate of freebsd-questions.
> > I don't believe that. I can surely speak for the germans here - I know
> > many of the would respond to questions if -security-questions. And if
> > I'm honest, many questions I see in -questions I'd like to see in f.e.
> > -security(-questions), because the -questions is a very low knowledge list.
I think that just one general questions list is too little. I was
subscribed to it once (when I started with FreeBSD, of course ;-) and
quickly unsubscribed again because the signal/noise ratio was bad, but
even more importantly because of many subjects that didn't interest me
the least. I don't have time to answer many questions, so I tend to
restrict this to areas where few people have knowledge, like SCSI
problems on Solaris, etc.
I'd bet the same happened to a lot of people who tried -questions. So
either the more focussed lists must accept questions in their area, or
lists like -security-questions should be created.
I run a couple of Debian machines, and debian-security is *very* similar
to freebsd-security, sans the excitement about Spam and off-topic posts.
About the same Signal/Noise, about the same volume. (Not right now, but
most of the time ;-)
> Hmm. OK. I'll bite.
OK, I'll reel in...
> Ask core for this formally, and convince them (us!) that this is needed,
> and I will champion your cause.
1) This list could use a charter. There are too many meta-discussions
about what is appropriate content. Anybody know where to steal one?
2a) If the charter says that only security incidents, loopholes, etc are
to be discussed, there should be a security-questions.
2b) If not, then not ;-)
> > > OK - you have a deal! If you annoy us properly by submitting enough
> > > good-quality documenation upgrades, I'll punish you by a) ensuring they
> > > are committed, and b) if enough of them come, ensuring that you can commit
> > > them your damn self ;-)
> > a) ok
> > b) not ok. I'm a developer and boss of a small company. I do not have
> > enough time to "really" prove into last final detail and the risk
> > that I submit (because it has to be fast) not enought tested and
> > verified stuff.
Same here, except that I'm on the sysadmin side of things. Like many
people, I've run into the deficit of documentation for KAME IPSec, and
I've been collecting mails with snippets of docs. I've seen about the
same questions reoccur every few weeks. So, yes, we could use an FAQ.
Attached to -security or -security-questions.
Lupe Christoph
--
| lupe@lupe-christoph.de | http://www.lupe-christoph.de/ |
| Big Misunderstandings #6398: The Titanic was not supposed to be |
| unsinkable. The designer had a speech impediment. He said: "I have |
| thith great unthinkable conthept ..." |
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020828113310.GP26115>