On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 18, 2013, at 15:17 , Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Jan, you can reject anything but that doesn't mean that my argument is >> invalid. And what this reject means by the way? > > I meant to say “I don’t believe your argument is correct”.
Yes so what does it means? > > >> Also yes it will favor github, the latency introduced by manual >> updates will make the things impracticable unless you will be online >> 100% of the time. And i wouldn't want that you or anyone do that job. >> This is a painful job that is also imo doesn't adress the problem. > > I will be online 150% the time if it is needed. Again, I expect the > need to do a manual copy to be *minimal*. Either way, the data will > be on dev@ first, favouring dev@ for most-real-time-info, and GitHub > second, that should align with your interests. no. You still don't understand my concern. I don't care that the information goes first on the dev ml. I'm concerned to have a neutral way to discuss at the time you want, not depending of a manual synchronisation. Since you can't physically be online 150% of the time that's impossible anyway. Also i'm in favor of direct contacts not contacts *via* someone. > > >> Also people that are already sponsor the use of github will be >> encouraged to use it instead of using a system inside the apache >> system. Even some of the committers apparently. > > And that is bad how? I already explained it. neutrality is more important than supporting trends. > > >> To answer to noah no I am not changing my position which was to be -0 >> (and not +) . I will let a vote to decide. I am in disagreement with a >> solution that address only 20% >> of the problem. In my opinion we need a way that encourage people to >> use a neutral workflow from the beginning. And if we choose to use >> this 20% solution then we should also decide about a deadline to end >> it if it doesn't work and also a deadline to end it if we didn't >> figure to address the problem of having a 2 way channel. > > Ok, let’s see how this goes and revisit in 12 months. 12 months can be damageable . Let say 3 months eventually. Though this is not to us to decide. Like suggested Noah I am working on another proposal that focus on my concern anyway. It will be online later this morning (or afternoon for you). - benoît
