OK, fair enough. That's two people who disagree with my sentiments. That's enough for me to withdraw my objections and let it happen on dev@. I have no problem with this.
Bruce On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:59 PM, David Jencks < [email protected]> wrote: > I'm not sure how that the fact that some discussion about the report has > occurred on private is relevant. I think the report will eventually be > publicly available, and it's hard to imagine we can say anything on dev > more inflammatory that what we already have. I think it would be more > transparent and community building to discuss the report on dev…. > especially since my impression is one of our goals is to increase community > involvement and eventually expand the pmc perhaps starting with helpful > contributors to this discussion :-) > > thanks > david jencks > > On Apr 17, 2015, at 3:49 PM, Bruce Snyder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I disagree simply because the folks on dev@ are not familiar with PMC > > discussions. > > > > Bruce > > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 1:43 PM, artnaseef <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hey Bruce - the original thread for the board report was on @dev. > Unless > >> there's a real need to take it back to @private, I think it is good to > work > >> through the report in the open so members of the community can see the > >> discussion and contribute to it. > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> View this message in context: > >> > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Plan-clarification-tp4695182p4695188.html > >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > perl -e 'print > > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );' > > > > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ > > Blog: http://bruceblog.org/ > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder > > -- perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );' ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ Blog: http://bruceblog.org/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
