Agreed they should happen publicly. Perhaps it is fine to just do it on dev@, but we'd have to make it clear that PMC-level approval is happening on that list, and that if you don't subscribe, then you miss out. And hey, perhaps we could do that with marketing@ too. i.e. Communicate that if you're on the PMC and you want input on events, then you better subscribe. I think it's up to us to set the rules. But we should be clear about what we're doing, and how people should/can participate.
On 9 April 2013 22:18, Joe Brockmeier <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 9, 2013, at 03:56 PM, Noah Slater wrote: > > But if we are saying that the PMC itself needs to grant approval, then > > the PMC as a whole needs to be copied in on the thread. Perhaps that is > just > > a CC to private@ with any formal request like this. We could then ask > that > > someone from the PMC acks the request, or we could just allow lazy > > consensus to apply, and if nobody objects, then it is approved. > > CC'ing private@ seems like a reasonable way to go. I'm with Chip that > these requests should happen publicly. > > Best, > > jzb > -- > Joe Brockmeier > [email protected] > Twitter: @jzb > http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ > -- NS
