Great! This is exactly the right path imo, commit then review :) Hopefully if certain tweets consistently get deleted... those such tweets will occur with decreasing frequency.
> On Mar 10, 2015, at 5:37 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 01:51PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I would not be in favor of formal process to bless (or not) tweets on the >>> "official" handle for this project. In fact I vetoed this notion when it >>> came up for a vote on private@. Disagreements are never actually settled >>> with process and red tape. >> >> I'm very strongly agreeing with the above. Like I said in a different thread, >> the fact that creds are now shared make it all a moot point as far as >> I'm concerned. >> >> If somebody on a PMC feels strongly about a particular tweet -- deleting is >> now >> an option. That of course, would require monitoring the account, but hey! >> that's >> a definition of actually caring. > > Strong +1 as well. It's like Commit-Then-Review process. If there are issues > with a commit - it's either get reversed or corrected in the subsequent > commits. The same amount of monitoring is involved. That'd be simple and no > additional bickering will ensue around the policy setting. > > I'd rather spend my time on 1.0 release, which would benefit dramatically from > the contributors, but not the massive pontification. > > Cos
