On 10/28/2016 04:26 PM, Gregg Reynolds wrote: > On Oct 28, 2016 6:05 PM, "Nivedita Singhvi" <niveditasinghvi at gmail.com > <mailto:niveditasinghvi at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> On 10/28/2016 03:56 PM, Gregg Reynolds wrote: >>> >>> On Oct 28, 2016 5:35 PM, "Mats Wichmann" <mats at osg.samsung.com > <mailto:mats at osg.samsung.com> >>> <mailto:mats at osg.samsung.com <mailto:mats at osg.samsung.com>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/28/2016 04:33 PM, Gregg Reynolds wrote: >>>> > On Oct 28, 2016 5:25 PM, "Nivedita Singhvi" >>> >>> <niveditasinghvi at gmail.com <mailto:niveditasinghvi at gmail.com> > <mailto:niveditasinghvi at gmail.com <mailto:niveditasinghvi at gmail.com>> >>> <mailto:niveditasinghvi at gmail.com <mailto:niveditasinghvi at gmail.com> > <mailto:niveditasinghvi at gmail.com <mailto:niveditasinghvi at gmail.com>>>> >>> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >> Hello, >>>> >> >>>> >> While the wiki page lists the names of the architects, maintainers >>>> >> and other contacts, it does not provide an email (except for a few) >>>> >> or other contact info: >>>> >> >>>> >> https://wiki.iotivity.org/projects_and_functionsrmation. >>>> >> >>>> >> While it's possible to hunt down some folks on the mailing list > or via >>>> >> the git tree (not always reachable, or accessible to all), it > would be >>>> >> nice to have the preferred email contact available off that wiki > page, >>>> >> or elsewhere, following the model that the Linux Kernel Maintainers >>>> >> file takes. >>>> >> >>>> >> https://www.kernel.org/doc/linux/MAINTAINERS >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Would the iotivity community please consider this? >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > +1 >>>> >>>> I know not everyone is always here all the time, but is there a >>> >>> problem with mailing to this list? >>>> >>>> >>> not sure I understand the question. personally I prefer that everything >>> be discussed on this list, but as a matter of fact that is not what >>> happens with gerrit. tons of stuff gets discussed only by the people >>> included as gerrit reviewers, and the results end up presented to the >>> rest of us as facts on the ground. >>> >>> somewhere on the web there is a great article explaining why email is >>> the best way to deal with patches (esp. wrt to linux) but naturally I >>> cannot find it. >>> >>> I think this is a (relatively) major problem with a gerrit-based project. >>> >>> one obvious way to begin to address this is to send daily digests. >>> >>> -gregg >>> >> >> https://lwn.net/Articles/702177/ >> >> Is that the one you're referring to? >> > close enough. not sure it's the article I remember but it make the same > points. thanks! I spent a good 10 minutes googling linux, kernel, > email, and got nothing but stuff about the best email clients. :) > > anyway the point I would like to make is this: iotivity is supposed to > be open source. which it is, as far as licensing is concerned. but an > open source project should really have an open process, which imho > iotivity does not have. I'm very grateful that the Big Companies > contributing to it make their code available but I confess I'm a little > miffed that so much of what they do happens behind the scenes. take 1.2 > as an example. massive changes, none of which (or at least few of which) > have been openly discussed on this list. e.g. going to mbeddtls. I > have not had the time to monitor 1.2, and since most of it has not been > openly discussed on the list I have no idea what I'm in for. not so > good, imo. > > -gregg
That's disconcerting to hear. I hope that's not the direction this project continues. It makes it much harder for an external potential contributor and a newbie to participate, and loses quite a bit of the value and advantage the open source process has, imho. thanks, Nivedita
