I think events should be discussed on marketing. Dev should remain 'Dev' related.
Sent from my iPhone On Apr 9, 2013, at 3:21 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
