On Mar 18, 2013, at 15:46 , Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> On Mar 18, 2013, at 15:17 , Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Jan, you can reject anything but that doesn't mean that my argument is >>> invalid. And what this reject means by the way? >> >> I meant to say “I don’t believe your argument is correct”. > > Yes so what does it means? >> >> >>> Also yes it will favor github, the latency introduced by manual >>> updates will make the things impracticable unless you will be online >>> 100% of the time. And i wouldn't want that you or anyone do that job. >>> This is a painful job that is also imo doesn't adress the problem. >> >> I will be online 150% the time if it is needed. Again, I expect the >> need to do a manual copy to be *minimal*. Either way, the data will >> be on dev@ first, favouring dev@ for most-real-time-info, and GitHub >> second, that should align with your interests. > > no. You still don't understand my concern. I don't care that the > information goes first on the dev ml. I'm concerned to have a neutral > way to discuss at the time you want, not depending of a manual > synchronisation. Since you can't physically be online 150% of the time > that's impossible anyway. Also i'm in favor of direct contacts not > contacts *via* someone. I get that, and I will raise that this sucks and needs automating once this becomes an actual problem. For now this is a theoretical concern. >>> To answer to noah no I am not changing my position which was to be -0 >>> (and not +) . I will let a vote to decide. I am in disagreement with a >>> solution that address only 20% >>> of the problem. In my opinion we need a way that encourage people to >>> use a neutral workflow from the beginning. And if we choose to use >>> this 20% solution then we should also decide about a deadline to end >>> it if it doesn't work and also a deadline to end it if we didn't >>> figure to address the problem of having a 2 way channel. >> >> Ok, let’s see how this goes and revisit in 12 months. > 12 months can be damageable . Let say 3 months eventually. Though this > is not to us to decide. 6 then. Jan --
