On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 06:41:13PM +0000, Ross Gardler wrote: > Thanks for the additional background Sam. With respect to "There are > some people with concerns that haven't been expressed on this list. > Some of those concerns may lead to the conclusion that having sponsors > acting independently of ASF wishes, however well meaning they are in > doing so, may lead to problematic results." - all I can say if "if it > didn't happen on the list, it didn't happen".
Not all interested parties are subscribed to this list. Those with concerns may be waiting for proposals to be brought before the Board, rather than getting involved with the sausage-making, here. There is a lot of grey area. "If you care, subscribe" "It has been delegated, so don't wait for a proposal, go to the source" "It is a [NOTICE] of action, not an [RFC] so feedback from outside is not on the menu" There are clearly sensitivities. I believe Sam has the right of it: approach cautiously, while listening. Personally, I disagree with the concept of "must be subscribed and involved", since we've always said Members can observe and participate at their discretion. Personally, I have no disagreement with Myrle's proposal. My comment here is on approach: whether it will be a fait d'acompli [NOTICE] to board@ ... or whether other groups may have constructive feedback (eg. members@ or somesuch; dunno). Not sure on the inclusion. Cheers, -g
