Le 30/04/15 19:49, Hadrian Zbarcea a écrit : > Emmanuel is correct, although he sounds (to me) a bit harsh. > > It is ok to communicate any way you want via any channel you want > (voice or not). It's not ok, it's limiting the communication to those who are present. Trust me on that, the project *will* suffer if you chose not to communicate mainly via the mailing list.
> What is not ok is to make decisions that way. +1 > So if you use a more interactive channel to speed up the exchange of > ideas (many projects use irc for instance) And this is not necessarily a good thing. Keep IRC for technical questions only (like "what are the command line option you use to run maven", etc). Again, people who aren't on the same TZ, or who are behind an aggressive FW at work, won't participate and will quickly feel excluded from the community. Not a good thing. > you need to bring that decision back to the non-interactive mailing > list where the ASF community build consensus. The reason, mentioned by > Emmanuel, is that communities are strong when people feel included. > > So minutes are great, but the phrasing should be more like: "discussed > the pros and cons of ...", "proposed to ...", etc and encourage the > rest of the community to provide comments, feedback, suggestions. If > no counter-proposals in a reasonable amount of time (typically 72 > hours), you can declare lazy consensus and move forward. > > It's important to understand the motivation behind the ASF > rules/guidelines (aka the Apache Way). The idea is to increase > participation, encourage consensus and build strong and diverse > communities. +1
