Hi Jim: Good to see you back here!
Cheers, Greg Trasuk > On Jan 6, 2016, at 10:31 AM, James Hurley <jim.hur...@icloud.com> wrote: > > +1 > > -Jim > > On Jan 06, 2016, at 10:13 AM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: >> Please, please cancel this. >> >> We do need to have a serious discussion of River future direction. I >> expect that discussion to take a lot longer than a week, and hope it >> will involve as many users and potential users of River as possible. For >> example, we may need to canvas other project mailing lists to find out >> whether a River with specific changes would be useful to them. >> >> It will certainly take me more than a week to study the subject, and the >> various opinions about it, sufficiently to be prepared to vote. >> >> I feel, very strongly, that we need to get River 3.0 out the door ASAP. >> Even with enough time for proper study, holding the River future >> discussion first will inevitably distract from that objective and delay >> the release. I thought that was also the PMC consensus. >> >> My preferred plan is get existing changes out as River 3.0 first, then >> discussion and study, then vote on future direction. I am sorely tempted >> to resign if this premature vote goes ahead, regardless of the outcome, >> but will not because I don't think such threats are an appropriate way >> of influencing PMC votes. >> >> Patricia >> >> On 1/6/2016 4:21 AM, Peter Firmstone wrote: >>> Option 1. I propose that we take security seriously, no security patches >>> are to be rejected prior to review, that we review and analyse them >>> properly based on merit. That discussions about security issues be taken >>> seriously. >>> >>> Option 2. Alternatively I resign my River committer status >>> >>> Please cast your vote, the vote is open for 7 days. >>> >>> Let the community decide. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> Sent from my Samsung device. >>> >>>
