We've gotten a response from ConCom - can we sum up and close this thread? On Tue, Apr 9, 2013, at 06:41 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > 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
Best, jzb -- Joe Brockmeier [email protected] Twitter: @jzb http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
