On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > Seems to me that it would be much, much better if > the Sender of these Emails were the shepherd of the > report rather than Sam and/or the secretary...
I'm not following. For years, shepherds were responsible for communicating back to PMCs, but this was sporadic. From what I can see, centralizing this to something the Secretary does consistently has proven more effective. Perhaps you are suggesting that the emails sent by the secretary "spoof" the shepherd? If so, I think that would be confusing. Finally, I don't see how this addresses the original question, which asked about where responses should be sent. Perhaps the content of the emails should contain a standard footer that says that questions can be addressed either by responding to the email (for urgent matters) or by addressing the feedback in the next scheduled report (for all other matters)? For those inclined to suggest patches, the relevant code can be found here: https://github.com/apache/whimsy/blob/master/www/board/agenda/views/actions/feedback.json.rb - Sam Ruby
