On Aug 16 2021, at 7:41 pm, Martin Owens <doctormo@geek-2.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2021-08-16 at 15:26 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
> I don't think that we should put a specific URL in the FSA. It means
> that we have to update the FSA for instance if we changed website
> backends.

URLs are backend agnostic. It could even point to a list kept on
gitlab, if that's what needed. The language is intended to settle a
specific location where the publishing happens but not in any way it's
mechanism. So long as future websites can mkdir and touch lists.txt
there should be no issue with having this language in the FSA.

"there should be no issue" is rude and insulting. I have an issue with it, I'm allowed to have that issue.

While perhaps the example of how a URL could be complicated doesn't hold weight with you, I still do believe putting an implementation detail in the FSA is a bad idea. I'd rather it require the Committee to keep the list and post it publicly, which is what we want. Let future PLCs decide and modernize the implementation appropriately without needing to update the FSA.

Fortunately we don't have to decide any of the specific mechanisms in this vote.

I'll crop out your snippy asides and agree with you that we don't need to decide the mechanisms in this vote. And as I stated, I don't think the text should specify the mechanisms either.