On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 04:19:21PM -0800, Dain Sundstrom wrote: > Give me a break.
No. The incubator PMC has "given breaks" before and it let to undesired side effects so now we're not going to do that anymore. > I'm not trying to hide anything. In general, when discussing policy or a general case, it is a good idea to not use a personal form of communication, because policy has nothing to do with specific individuals. Nevertheless, noted. > You have a goal > to make sure that no one is confused about the status of an > incubating project, and you have a proposal that you believe works > for mailing lists. I am suggesting alternate proposal. "You", "I", "me". *We* have a goal. *You* needs to be a part of *we*, in general there is no "I" involved. This is "us vs a problem", not "you vs me". Don't confuse the two. > If you don't like my proposal, simply state that I read mads his email as exactly that. I even saw two arguments (one its clean and simple, two its less cumbersome if we decide halfway through incubation that a project is a better fit elsewhere). > , but please don't > imply that offering an alternate proposal is anything else. C'mon, dude! Do you want to bicker about what some words from someone in some email thread might have "implied" or do you want to help tackle the issue at hand? Offering an alternate proposal as part of a vote thread after the discussion has taken place already where one did not participate *is* "anything else" by the way. What I didn't like is the very fact that someone out-of-the-blue proposes an alternate, since that derails the vote thread, takes time and energy of everyone, and is just counter-productive in the end. You may notice that both Cliff and I have some reservations but we're not getting in the way of making progress. > If you have specific, issues with my proposal, that will be welcome also. Mads listed two. Of those I find the "simpler" qualifier extremely important, since in general this stuff is not, and that's what leads to confusion, frustration, etc. (...) Anyway, I suggest you accept there is no "break" to be had, you weren't around when the relevant discussions took place, and hence shouldn't re-start one now. LSD > -dain > > On Dec 19, 2005, at 10:31 AM, Mads Toftum wrote: > > >On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 10:11:05AM -0800, Dain Sundstrom wrote: > >>BTW would [EMAIL PROTECTED] or activemq-dev- > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] be ok, since they contain the word > >>incubate? > >> > >Nope - it still seems like you're trying to hide that a project is > >under > >incubation. Keeping projects under incubation in the incubator.a.o > >is a > >simple and clean way to seperate the projects and makes it a lot > >easier > >to clean up if they don't graduate. Sticking a project under a > >specific > >pmc up front also adds additional bother if it later shows to either > >merit going directly to tlp or to be a better fit with another pmc. > > > >vh > > > >Mads Toftum > >-- > >`Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
