IMHO "lack of answer" in a transparent procedure with reasonable response windows just means "carry on, everyone agrees". Having a fixed last date for comments might force someone to say something (or used as an argument for STFU later).
Just my 0.02, Māris. 2014-12-29 9:50 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler <[email protected]>: > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Moritz Lennert > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 24/11/14 14:38, Martin Landa wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> as we are closer and closer to GRASS 7 release I would like to open >>> discussion related to "Release procedure" - RFC4 [1]. Ideally (I would >>> say) it would make sense to find a way how accept such procedure >>> before we start with GRASS RCs... >>> >>> Thanks for your feedback in advance! Martin >>> >>> [1] http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure >> >> >> Rereading it I found parts that didn't seem clear, so I reordered the >> sentences slightly to make the meaning clearer. > > While this is all nice, I am strongly lacking support in the day to > day release management. > Again the RC1 feedback is actually 0 (zero). > > The "General Procedure" in the document is lacking answers to what to > do if no or no reasonable feedback occurs. > Any ideas? We are in soft freeze for months. > > Markus > _______________________________________________ > grass-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
