On Jul 12, 2009, at 8:56 AM, Jannis Pohlmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:31:27 +0200 > Olivier Goffart <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Le Friday 10 July 2009, Jannis Pohlmann a écrit : >> >>> Does it really matter who the contact points are? As Aaron said, if >>> two persons from the same project disagree, then there's something >>> wrong. So I think it's better to get people involved who are >>> actually working with the specs, even if that may be different >>> persons from time to time. In the end you can always ask someone >>> "is that the final and official word from your project?" to be sure >>> he gives the fact that he's acting as a representative some >>> thought ;) >> >> >> In my opinion it does not matter who it is. but it has to be someone >> the project trust. And the decision of the desktop has to be taken >> after having consulted all the relevent person for the specification >> within the desktop. And we need someone that know who works on what, >> and will take care of broadcasting the announce of the spec to the >> right people. >> >> Also, I don't see what's 'wrong' when two poeple from the same >> project disagree. That happens very often. KDE and Gnome are big >> project with lots of people with different opinions. It is true that >> it is probably much easier to get consensus within a single desktop >> than between desktop, but still, conflicts happens. > > How about this: > > We establish one or two persons per project as general freedesktop.org > contacts. Whether they are part of the release team or not is > irrelevant. These are the persons to contact when a new spec or > whatever is brought up. They are also the persons to contact when > per-specification contacts (see below) are unresponsive. > > Together with the meta data which holds information on the adoption of > a spec in various projects, we list one or two persons per project. > These are the per-specification contacts which are ideally involved in > discussions and can be contacted e.g. for adoption status updates > before a new version of a spec is released or when someone feels > that a > spec needs to be changed/improved. Ideally, most of the communication > happens on public mailinglists and via the xdg-specs repository, so > whenever a new projects wants to be listed in the meta data of a spec, > one of its developers can extend the meta data with their own project > information and request one of the admins to merge this change. > > What do people think? That's what I immagined when the repo idea first came up. This seems to get rid of bottlenecks. Jeremy > > - Jannis > _______________________________________________ > xdg mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
