Re: Call for Channels work

> if you can work on drafting a call that would be great Sure, sounds like a sensible place to start. I won't get onto anything immediately, but I'll start to have a think about spec'ing it out at some point. (Other offers/progress on this from anyone also welcome in the meantime tho') > Why

Re: Call for Channels work

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Tom Christie wrote: > > we don't have a mechanism to delegate the "what should we build" part of > the question for work other than channels. > > I guess there's two aspects to that. > > 1. Do Mozilla allow some flex in meeting the

Re: Call for Channels work

> we don't have a mechanism to delegate the "what should we build" part of the question for work other than channels. I guess there's two aspects to that. 1. Do Mozilla allow some flex in meeting the proposal / do we have an differing priorities now / do we want to discuss what those should

Re: Call for Channels work

Hi Tom - This is a great question, and thanks for asking it. The short version is "we're not quite sure yet, and we need to work this bit out." To go into more details, first I need to explain a bit about how the MOSS committee (of which I'm a part) works, and what it is and isn't doing.

Re: Call for Channels work

Do the Django MOSS committee have any plans for the request parsing/response rendering portion of the Django MOSS proposal? I'm assuming that any of the following could be reasonable choices: * Expecting to issue a call for work in due course, but treating channels as the priority for now. *

Call for Channels work

Hi everyone, We finally have everything in place to pay people from the MOSS funds given to us by Mozilla for Channels (and more importantly we now have the money itself), so now I'd like to open the call for help. We have a list of tasks that need doing in Channels, and the money to pay people