On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Martijn
Dashorst wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:21 PM, ant elder wrote:
>> Also, if we do the making best practices a graduation requirement
>> instead of a release requirement that might alleviate the poor mentor
>> issue as its easy enough to check the latest
On 21/08/2009, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:21 PM, ant elder wrote:
> > Also, if we do the making best practices a graduation requirement
> > instead of a release requirement that might alleviate the poor mentor
> > issue as its easy enough to check the latest release at
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:21 PM, ant elder wrote:
> Also, if we do the making best practices a graduation requirement
> instead of a release requirement that might alleviate the poor mentor
> issue as its easy enough to check the latest release at graduation
> time and vote against graduation until
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:02 PM, ant elder wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> My concern is more that of 'complacent mentors'... How many people
>> vote +1 even if they have not scrutinized the release requirements?
>> IMHO, too many... So, would that mean that so
On 21/08/2009, ant elder wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:55 AM, sebb wrote:
> > -1
> >
> > AIUI, all proposed releases must be voted on by the IPMC, not just by
> > the podlings.
> >
>
>
> And they still would be as the only binding votes are from IPMC
> members, and thats just the same
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> On 21 Aug 2009, at 08:58, ant elder wrote:
>
>> What do people think about changing the poddling release voting
>> process so that there is just a single vote which is held on the
>> poddlings dev list instead of the dual voting we have now w
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Rainer Döbele wrote:
>
> I agree with Martijn's view on the first release of a podling which is much
> more critical than subsequent releases.
>
> But for subsequent releases the voting process should be simplified in one
> way or the other. At the moment we have
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:55 AM, sebb wrote:
> -1
>
> AIUI, all proposed releases must be voted on by the IPMC, not just by
> the podlings.
>
And they still would be as the only binding votes are from IPMC
members, and thats just the same as the situation with the poddling
new committer and ppmc
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:40 PM, J Aaron Farr wrote:
>>
>> On Fri 21 Aug 2009 14:58, ant elder wrote:
>>
>>> What do people think about changing the poddling release voting
>>> process so that there is just a single vote which is held on the
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 8:40 AM, J Aaron Farr wrote:
>
> On Fri 21 Aug 2009 14:58, ant elder wrote:
>
>> What do people think about changing the poddling release voting
>> process so that there is just a single vote which is held on the
>> poddlings dev list instead of the dual voting we have now
On 21 Aug 2009, at 08:58, ant elder wrote:
What do people think about changing the poddling release voting
process so that there is just a single vote which is held on the
poddlings dev list instead of the dual voting we have now with a
poddling dev list vote followed by an general@ vote? This
s.
> Hence my opinion is:
> -1 for the first release
> +1 for subsequent releases
>
> Rainer
>
>
> Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> > Re: [DISCUSS] Changing poddling release voting process
>
> >
> > -1
> >
> > I try to check my podlings'
Changing poddling release voting process
>
> -1
>
> I try to check my podlings' releases personally, but I usually fail
> where Sebb shines :). It is much easier to guide the addition of new
> committers/ppmc members than it is to properly vet a *first* release.
>
> T
-1
I try to check my podlings' releases personally, but I usually fail
where Sebb shines :). It is much easier to guide the addition of new
committers/ppmc members than it is to properly vet a *first* release.
The first release of any podling is an exercise of patience and
frustration, but it doe
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:40 PM, J Aaron Farr wrote:
>
> On Fri 21 Aug 2009 14:58, ant elder wrote:
>
>> What do people think about changing the poddling release voting
>> process so that there is just a single vote which is held on the
>> poddlings dev list instead of the dual voting we have now
J Aaron Farr wrote:
> On Fri 21 Aug 2009 14:58, ant elder wrote:
>
>> What do people think about changing the poddling release voting
>> process so that there is just a single vote which is held on the
>> poddlings dev list instead of the dual voting we have now with a
>> poddling dev list vote f
On Fri 21 Aug 2009 14:58, ant elder wrote:
> What do people think about changing the poddling release voting
> process so that there is just a single vote which is held on the
> poddlings dev list instead of the dual voting we have now with a
> poddling dev list vote followed by an general@ vote
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 8:58 AM, ant elder wrote:
> What do people think about changing the poddling release voting
> process so that there is just a single vote which is held on the
> poddlings dev list instead of the dual voting we have now with a
> poddling dev list vote followed by an gene
What do people think about changing the poddling release voting
process so that there is just a single vote which is held on the
poddlings dev list instead of the dual voting we have now with a
poddling dev list vote followed by an general@ vote? This would be
similar to the changes done recently f
19 matches
Mail list logo
