Dropping board to BCC. Note that:
> > If ComDev is going to host this stuff, then ComDev should have the say > > in what the actual requirements are. > > Absolutely! And right now I'm personally volunteering my cycles to help with > that within the ComDev framework. Is exactly the kind of requirements creep I was cautioning about. On the board list I was told, loudly and clearly, that ComDev would not be responsible for anything but hosting. Now the PMC is responsible for "the actual requirements". ComDev is not and (IMHO) should not be the IPMC. There is a lack of clarity in what is being requested. If it's a place to put content then fine. If it’s a back-door replacement of the IPMC then I'm -1. To try and boil this down to something concrete let me ask a question: What *exactly* is the content we are talking about? If its best practice that refers to appropriate process documentation managed by some other PMC then it fits here. If it's process documentation then it does not fit. Ross Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation -----Original Message----- From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman Shaposhnik Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2015 10:30 AM To: Apache Board; ComDev Subject: Re: [Proposal] Creation of Apache Zest Provisional TLP +ComDev ML On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:19 AM, Shane Curcuru <a...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote: > So when I see Greg and others just chucking stuff at ComDev, and being > just "static content", and Ross and others saying "Hey, ComDev already > has stuff to do and this new stuff isn't necessarily what we plan on", > it's something we need to resolve. I would like to work with ComDev and help with whatever needs to be done on the pTLP side. Would you guys consider me as volunteering, please? What hurdles do I need to clear to at least be given karma for ComDev wiki? > If ComDev is going to host this stuff, then ComDev should have the say > in what the actual requirements are. Absolutely! And right now I'm personally volunteering my cycles to help with that within the ComDev framework. > And we should have a more specific > and coherent doc of what the detailed requirements/process is, to make > sure we're all talking about the same thing. (apologies if I haven't > read a clearly posted set yet). For now, the only request is to host the emerging documentation on the wiki. Is this something ComDev can consider, provided you guys accept my volunteering? Thanks, Roman.
