Hi Johnathan,

I should clarify what I had meant to say earlier in context--I believe I
misspoke (serves me right to post with low blood sugar).

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Jude Nelson <judecn@???> wrote:
>
> The ML structure will neither fix nor prevent bad behavior. However, it
>> can mitigate its effect on the project. For this reason, I support
>> Hendrik's idea of having a -tech mailing list for technical topics only
>> (but that both users and developers can join). I also support having a few
>> guidelines on more specialized mailing lists (should they be created) that
>> describe what behavior is appropriate on them, as well as having a
>> publicly-visible process in place for how to deal with people who abuse
>> their list membership.
>>
>>
It was wrong of me to suggest that being off-topic in and of itself evil;
that was not the intent of this paragraph. Sometimes, I use the phrase
"bad behavior" in a general way to simply mean "behavior that is
inconsistent with what is expected". In this case, it was not meant to be
a statement about the quality of the content or the character of the
poster, but rather about the context in which the post occurs. Not the
best choice of words, I must admit.

What I was trying to say is that no matter what ML structure Devuan goes
with, it's not going to eliminate the fundamental problems with mailing
lists (i.e. people can post off-topic, people can misspeak, people can come
off as insensitive without meaning to, etc.). But, by grouping threads by
topic (i.e. having separate MLs), we can mitigate some of the frustrations
felt by some subscribers by helping them find only the emails that they
want to read, since certain subjects lend themselves better to the
sensibilities of the reader.

I've said more than I wanted to say on the ML topic--I'm fine with whatever
Devuan chooses to do, but if I had to express a preference, it would be for
a separate -tech ML.

Thanks,
-Jude