On Apr 9, 2013, at 6:13 PM, "Kelceydamage@bbits" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think events should be discussed on marketing. Dev should remain 'Dev' > related. +1 > 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
