On 2 September 2014 10:56, Evgeny Khramtsov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tue, 2 Sep 2014 09:17:05 +0100 > Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Cramer, E.R. (Eelco) > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > So it is very well possible to host a service with the same > > > features people love at github. > > > > There's an assumption running through a lot of posts in this thread > > that moving to a github-like pull request model would be a good thing. > > Our situation is somewhat different to the typical OSS project hosting > > on github. The primary responsibility for XEPs lies with the authors > > (Council might suggest new authors for XEPs where the original authors > > are AWOL, but a) that's rare and b) we don't have a procedure for that > > (about which I'm uncomfortable)), so it's not a case of submitting > > pull requests to a central body and waiting for them to get merged, > > those changes should come from the authors. This complicates 'throw it > > on github, we'll get exposure and patches and the world will be full > > of unicorns and fairies' significantly. > > Well, if the procedure is complicated, then it should be simplified to > allow pull requests from different authors. > So your argument is that if the procedure doesn't fit the tool, we should change the procedure? Dave.
