What exactly will be the implication of the outcome of this vote, in
case the content is agreed upon? What's the proposal of the voting?
The document seems to be informative rather then formal. It's verbose on
definitions that should be commonly understood or can only broadly
defined (what is
Completely agree, we should absolutely do it.
On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 12:27 PM Nate McCall wrote:
> [Moved to C* only thread]
>
> We got a lot of feedback from folks after this year's track. I'm keen to do
> this again. At this point I think we are just looking at saying "yes we
> would like to
[Moved to C* only thread]
We got a lot of feedback from folks after this year's track. I'm keen to do
this again. At this point I think we are just looking at saying "yes we
would like to participate" and all details about tracks, etc. will be TBD.
Thoughts?
-Nate
-- Forwarded message
I made a couple of additional changes to the document based on the
comments, and there are a couple more that need to be addressed.
I will work on moving this document to cwiki.
Thanks,
Sumanth
On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 10:02 AM Dinesh Joshi wrote:
> There are a few points that need to be
There are a few points that need to be clarified in doc. I am also fine if we
want to adopt the document as-is and then refine it as we build experience with
the process.
Dinesh
> On Sep 30, 2019, at 3:24 PM, sankalp kohli wrote:
>
> Sure..lets do that.
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 3:21 PM
Hi, folks,
(Note: You're receiving this email because you're on the dev@ list for
one or more Apache Software Foundation projects.)
For ApacheCon North America 2019, we asked projects to participate in
the creation of project/topic specific tracks. This was very successful,
with about 15
> Seems like the intersection of this is: "Lazy consensus is simply an
> announcement of 'silence gives assent.'" with a caveat of "you have N hours
> to dissent before we take silence as assent" when you're unsure or a topic
> is contentious, which tracks with what I've seen kind of informally
