Hmm. Good point. Though, that depends on how likely ConCom are to turn around and say "well, it doesn't matter that nobody responded, you have to shut this down now." I think they would be more likely to concede it was their mistake and not pursue it. But, I don't know. I don't even have that much experience with them. I certainly don't speak for them.
If you want to get involved, I suggest you subscribe to concom@apache.organd post a message. (It is a private list, but open to all committers.) (Admittedly, their list of mailing lists is also quite confusing...) On 21 April 2013 20:43, Joe Brockmeier <j...@zonker.net> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 21, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Noah Slater wrote: > > I wouldn't worry too much about not getting an ACK. As Ross points out, > > it's a good enough sign that nobody cares enough to object. Which is, of > > course, what we call lazy consensus. Which is a really great social hack, > > if you ask me. > > In general, I agree that lazy consensus is great for a lot of decisions. > "I'm going to do X to the Website," or "I'm merging a new feature," both > of which allow the community to review / suggest changes, etc. Also, > both things can easily be rolled back with revision control. > > Planning events, on the other hand... If I'm spending money to put on an > event, I'd really like at least an ACK if I need to get permission (or > lack of refusal) to move forward. > > What's the process for getting on ConCom? If it's so short-handed that > even ack'ing a request is problematic, I'd like to help out. > > Best, > > jzb > -- > Joe Brockmeier > j...@zonker.net > Twitter: @jzb > http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ > -- NS
