Tom, Ian, please move the discussion over to the discuss@ list. If
there's any code questions (and there were people interested in the
long-dormant postgres-connector), that should go to
libreoff...@lists.freedesktop.org.
Thanks,
-- Thorsten
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Hi Tom,
Tom Davies wrote on 2011-09-13 10:48:
I am sorry but there is NO suitable list to discuss Base. Almost no-one that
has expressed any interest in working on Base is on the list you discuss and
they are not willing to join a high-traffic list that knows nothing about using
Base.
Hi Florian,
this is the *wrong* list to discuss about base. *Please* move the discussion
over to discuss@, as Thorsten asked.
Well, maybe it's not really so off-topic, IMHO. I think it's an issue
that Tom - and maybe even others - really want to put before the SC.
Every time I read about Base
2011/9/13 Thorsten Behrens t...@documentfoundation.org
Hi David,
you wrote:
While I'm sure that people understand that the SC can't create
resources (manpower or financial) out of nothing, there is nonetheless
a not-inconsiderable number of people that would like to see the SC
regard
The general notion here was that
having a separate Base list would not serve the purpose - so what
other, concrete proposals are there to discuss within the SC?
The general notion you're saying, IMHO, comes from people who are not
directly involved in Base's issue itself. How many of
Hello Ian, Tom, Paulo,
2011/9/13 Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com
The general notion here was that
having a separate Base list would not serve the purpose - so what
other, concrete proposals are there to discuss within the SC?
The general notion you're saying, IMHO, comes from people
On 13 September 2011 13:32, Charles-H. Schulz
charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Hello Ian, Tom, Paulo,
2011/9/13 Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com
The general notion here was that
having a separate Base list would not serve the purpose - so what
other, concrete proposals
Ian,
2011/9/13 Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com
On 13 September 2011 13:32, Charles-H. Schulz
charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Hello Ian, Tom, Paulo,
2011/9/13 Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com
The general notion here was that
having a separate Base list would not
Hello,
may I jump in here? I think the topic is cooking a bit too hot.
This list is *SOLELY* for discussions and votes of the steering
committee, and for requests to the steering committee. The traffic here
is groing and groing, and puts the initial purpose - track records of
decisions -
Hi Thorsten,
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Thorsten Behrens
t...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Tom, Ian, please move the discussion over to the discuss@ list. If
there's any code questions (and there were people interested in the
long-dormant postgres-connector), that should go to
Hi David,
David Nelson wrote on 2011-09-13 11:59:
I know there are no easy, immediate solutions, but there are people
who would like to see the SC regard this Base issue as being something
important to deal with.
that's fine, of course. My point is not that the SC does not want to get
Hi Florian,
I perfectly understand your point.
It is not helpful when you declare a thread to be a vote among SC
members and then people jump in with friendly and encouraging
comments, because then the SC can't vote properly and unambiguously.
Maybe label vote threads as SC VOTE:?
Then people
Hi,
David Nelson wrote on 2011-09-13 16:22:
Maybe label vote threads as SC VOTE:?
the thing is: This whole list should be only
- SC vote
- SC discuss
- request to SC
any *nothing* else. Any other discussion should be on the appropriate
lists, i.e. discuss@. That's
Hi David, *
Von: David Nelson li...@traduction.biz
I perfectly understand your point.
It is not helpful when you declare a thread to be a vote among SC
members and then people jump in with friendly and encouraging
comments, because then the SC can't vote properly and unambiguously.
14 matches
Mail list logo