(I noticed that you replied to the list, and not to the bugreport. I
took the liberty to send my reply to the bug as well to have a complete
log of the discussion. Feel free to drop the list in the subsequent replies).
On 04/08/2016 22:22, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>
> One thing I don't think we're
On 03/08/2016 17:41, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Well, not _all_ of the bullet points above are things that the TC is
> (or could be) bad at.
>
> But, in increasing order of likely controversy:
>
> * By my comments about "judgemental" I meant that a "helping people
>get their ideas done" team
Hi Philip,
On 03/08/2016 10:47, Philip Hands wrote:
> Conflicting goals:
>
> Unless it's clear that both goals will be done unless one of them is
> stopped, and they are going to be in conflict from the start, I think
> it's normally best to let them compete. As long as each effort is
>
Hi gregor,
On 14/07/2016 04:12, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:39:33 +0200, Margarita Manterola wrote:
>
> (cc'ing leader@, withstanding the temptation to cc -project in order not to
> hijack the TC specific bug)
>
FWIW, I am subscribed to -ctte mailing list.
>> Additionally,
Hi marga,
On 11/07/2016 12:39, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> For documentation purposes, I list below my summary of the points that were
> raised during the Roadmap BOF. These items are separate and may not
> necessarily
> all (or even any) need to be true in the implementation adopted. During
Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Bug#830344: How should the TC help with a project
roadmap?"):
> However, I'm struck by the following even if I don't entirely know what
> to make of it.
>
> Ian> * To be accessible and approachable, and not judgemental.
>
> Ia
I'm not really advocating that the TC would be a very good help promote
your ideas team.
However, I'm struck by the following even if I don't entirely know what
to make of it.
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> * To be accessible and approachable,
Philip Hands writes ("Bug#830344: How should the TC help with a project
roadmap?"):
> I managed to make time to watch the video of the roadmap BoF, so
> hopefully I'm now able to respond to more than the name "roadmap*.
Thanks, Philip, for this penetrating analysis.
I com
Hi,
I managed to make time to watch the video of the roadmap BoF, so
hopefully I'm now able to respond to more than the name "roadmap*.
Some notes regarding the BoF:
Consensus:
It strikes me that where there is consensus, the process of getting it
on the roadmap is not really needed, so
On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:39:33 +0200, Margarita Manterola wrote:
(cc'ing leader@, withstanding the temptation to cc -project in order
not to hijack the TC specific bug)
> Additionally, I suggested that a team (be it the TC or some other team) could
> gather the list of goals and once a year let
Here are my thoughts on the road map and TC involvement.
There is value in two levels of thing:
* Goals that we've committed totrying as a community. For these, RC bugs or
NMUing a package are valuable.
At this level it's desirable to have review of the plan to achieve a
goal. It's
Margarita Manterola writes:
> For documentation purposes, I list below my summary of the points that were
> raised during the Roadmap BOF. These items are separate and may not
> necessarily
> all (or even any) need to be true in the implementation adopted. During the
> BOF
>
For documentation purposes, I list below my summary of the points that were
raised during the Roadmap BOF. These items are separate and may not necessarily
all (or even any) need to be true in the implementation adopted. During the BOF
there were disagreements on almost all of them.
a. Proposals
Package: tech-ctte
User: tech-c...@packages.debian.org
Mehdi has proposed that the TC be involved in some fashion with a
"project roadmap". Some of the TC members met in person at debconf 16 to
talk about how that might work. I will attempt to (badly) summarize some
of the ideas brought out in
14 matches
Mail list logo