On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 11:38:46PM +, Simon Phipps wrote:
> Indeed, I agree totally. And they didn't, it was left to the
> Communities. The direct recognition process is an exception-handling
> process.
Yes; the volume of requests just makes it clear that we need a
higher-level exception-
On Mar 5, 2007, at 23:17, Shawn Walker wrote:
I cannot possibly agree more with this statement. This only further
supports Stephen Lau's post about why the OGB shouldn't be intimately
involved in the day-to-day processes of the community (please read the
full blog post here:
http://whacked.net/
On 06/03/07, Keith M Wesolowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
have very many contributors. In the long run, this suggests that
per-Community representation may someday be needed a la the United
States Senate. In the short run, it suggests that some communities
are poorly organised and led, and tho
Simon Phipps wrote:
On Mar 5, 2007, at 20:55, Glynn Foster wrote:
Hi,
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
reality. Similarly, is your qemu project affiliated with any
community? If so, ask the leaders of that community why you weren't
included.)
Exactly - that's the right place to start, not with
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 09:55:37AM +1300, Glynn Foster wrote:
> But there's absolutely no consistency with that. There's no
> guidelines or best practices of how to apply the membership. If one
> community's interpretation of the process is easier for geting 'Core
> Contributor' status compared to
On Mar 5, 2007, at 20:55, Glynn Foster wrote:
Hi,
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
reality. Similarly, is your qemu project affiliated with any
community? If so, ask the leaders of that community why you weren't
included.)
Exactly - that's the right place to start, not with the OGB and not
with
Hi,
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
>> reality. Similarly, is your qemu project affiliated with any
>> community? If so, ask the leaders of that community why you weren't
>> included.)
>
> Exactly - that's the right place to start, not with the OGB and not
> with the process itself. If the Communit
I agree that communities/projects should be organized better.
Octave
--- Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> >> reality. Similarly, is your qemu project affiliated with any
> >> community? If so, ask the leaders of that community why you
> weren't
> >> in
Hi,
Speaking as the leader of the Systems Administration community, I'd
have to say that the endorsement function is a manual process and
doesn't change any community processes. It's a totally manual process
where you select from a list of projects to endorse. I haven't updated
it in a long time a
>I also think this is a good sign that the relationship between
>Communities and Projects is not well understood by all participants.
>There are times it hasn't been at all clear to me, at least.
>
>Perhaps getting an endorsing community needs to be a prerequisite to
>setting up a project?
Perha
I also think this is a good sign that the relationship between
Communities and Projects is not well understood by all participants.
There are times it hasn't been at all clear to me, at least.
Perhaps getting an endorsing community needs to be a prerequisite to
setting up a project?
-- Garre
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 10:25:28AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>
> > In this case, I think it's still a follow-on of the poor initial setup
> > of Communities - instead of a Xen community, we should have a Virtualization
> > community with Xen & q
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
[ ... ]
In this case, I think it's still a follow-on of the poor initial setup
of Communities - instead of a Xen community, we should have a Virtualization
community with Xen & qemu projects.
And a Zones project. And a BrandZ project. A solaris-vmwar
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 10:25:28AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> In this case, I think it's still a follow-on of the poor initial setup
> of Communities - instead of a Xen community, we should have a Virtualization
> community with Xen & qemu projects.
Completely agree. Nothing precludes the
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 10:25:28AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> >>reality. Similarly, is your qemu project affiliated with any
> >>community? If so, ask the leaders of that community why you weren't
> >>included.)
> >
> >Exactly - that's the right place to start,
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
reality. Similarly, is your qemu project affiliated with any
community? If so, ask the leaders of that community why you weren't
included.)
Exactly - that's the right place to start, not with the OGB and not
with the process itself. If the Community leaders are unr
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 10:02:32AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> The system for choosing core contributors is notably flawed in that
> it only recognizes people working with Communities, not Projects or
> distros. (For instance, Roland wasn't initially listed because
This is not a flaw in th
17 matches
Mail list logo
