On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 8:29 PM Timo Stollenwerk <ti...@plone.org> wrote:
> All good. It seems I indeed misunderstood the sentence. I am all for > standardizing the process and this sounds like a good addition. Though, > this misunderstanding from my part makes it even more important IMHO to not > send this out to the public (because others might misunderstand this in the > same way I did). > > Cheers, > Timo > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 5:24 PM Alessandro Pisa <alessandro.p...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Timo (and all) sorry if the invitation was not sent out, but I didn't >> even see it coming that I was going to organize a FWT meeting. >> We are trying to organize the FWT meeting in a more standard way. >> Unluckily I did not see a lot of replies to my (pretty numerous) >> emails on this mailing list and I (wrongly) assumed people were busy >> with something else. >> >> On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 at 17:06, Timo Stollenwerk <ti...@plone.org> wrote: >> > >> > Regarding the "proposal to decrease the amount of bureaucracy needed >> for each PLIP". This is a pretty fundamental change in the mission of the >> FWT. Even if that's just a proposal. I wouldn't include this in the meeting >> notes TBH and discuss this in a meeting, when more than three members >> attend (and with proper invitations send out). >> > >> >> No problem,I am fine with not publishing that part. >> >> To give you some context, the goal was to not block PRs like the ones >> reviewed in >> https://gist.github.com/ale-rt/c02281561d55564af6794e5cbf6fe513. >> They are pending since month, they have a proper review and we are not >> able to complete the process. >> Those PRs are really small and unluckily nobody replied to my mails >> and no FWT meeting happened since a lot of time. >> >> I personally feel ashamed to block Maurits for such a small thing, >> while huge changes (e.g. the Zope 5 adoption) happen in a way which is >> exactly the one described in the proposal. >> >> > When a simple vote from two contributors is sufficient, we can just >> close the FWT (which is a valid option if that is what we want). >> > >> >> This sentence is a fallacy which I don't even want to start to comment by >> mail. >> Let's clarify this in the next FWT meeting :) >> > This "valid option" was a reference to a discussion that was brought up in the steering about the role of the framework team in the Plone community. I just want to make clear that this is not my personal opinion. Let's indeed discuss this face-to-face in the next FWT meeting. :) Cheers, Timo > >> Ciao and see you in two weeks! >> -- >> @ale_pisa - http://ale-rt.github.io - http://alepisa.blogspot.com - >> https://it.linkedin.com/in/apisa >> >
_______________________________________________ Framework-Team mailing list framework-t...@lists.plone.org https://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plone-framework-team