On 03/10/2015 02:37 PM, Konstantin Boudnik 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
While I do agree a formal process to bless tweets would be way too
heavy, sharing the account password would not address the same issues
that a proper guideline would.
Without guidelines, we could end up with self-contradicting tweets, or
too much deletion. All of it with little or no accountability or
explanation and we would end up re-playing the same threads about what
can be tweeted from our PMC's account.
These guidelines will enable us to agree on what tweets benefit the
project and its community the most with a clear and consistent voice.
These guidelines are also the proof that we have all arrived to a
consensus that satisfied everyone.
Thanks,
Bruno
