Update Announcement Format discussion

[Warren Togami]

Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Chuck Wolber wrote:
> 
>>>Agreed.  We can just assign the numbers on First Come - First Served
>>>basis just before sending the announcements, right?
>>
>>Well that plan sure does scream "race condition"... 
> 
> 
> Yep! But it's a controlled race condition :)
> 
> 
>>and I'm sure as heck 
>>not going to volunteer to "hand out" numbers upon request...
> 
> 
> The point would be that if the announcements are all sent (and signed)  
> by one person, or a small group of persons, the ID number could be
> left empty until just a moment before the announcement is sent (and
> stored).  No race condition then, except within the head of the one 
> person (or a small group of persons).
> 
> But if the assumption is that whoever did the backport would sent the 
> announcement him/herself (IMHO, this sounds a bit problematic), this 
> would obviously not work..
> 

The advisories need to come from a small group of leaders in the Legacy 
project.  Given that the scope of Legacy is so small, this might as well 
be a single person.  That person needs to be available often though.

In order to help that person, the list should discuss drafts for 
announcements.  After revisions and the list has agreed upon a certain 
text, then the announcement can go out.  This would work for most 
non-critical advisories like the ones we currently have pending.  For 
more serious advisories like an internet facing service the leadership 
would need to discuss it privately of course, and post the announcement 
when the embargo is lifted.

Warren