I am a little out of my depth here, to be honest. I'm going to start a thread on con...@apache.org.
On 9 April 2013 23:21, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: > Agreed they should happen publicly. Perhaps it is fine to just do it on > dev@, but we'd have to make it clear that PMC-level approval is happening > on that list, and that if you don't subscribe, then you miss out. And hey, > perhaps we could do that with marketing@ too. i.e. Communicate that if > you're on the PMC and you want input on events, then you better subscribe. > I think it's up to us to set the rules. But we should be clear about what > we're doing, and how people should/can participate. > > > On 9 April 2013 22:18, Joe Brockmeier <j...@zonker.net> wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013, at 03:56 PM, Noah Slater wrote: >> > But if we are saying that the PMC itself needs to grant approval, then >> > the PMC as a whole needs to be copied in on the thread. Perhaps that is >> just >> > a CC to private@ with any formal request like this. We could then ask >> that >> > someone from the PMC acks the request, or we could just allow lazy >> > consensus to apply, and if nobody objects, then it is approved. >> >> CC'ing private@ seems like a reasonable way to go. I'm with Chip that >> these requests should happen publicly. >> >> Best, >> >> jzb >> -- >> Joe Brockmeier >> j...@zonker.net >> Twitter: @jzb >> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ >> > > > > -- > NS > -- NS
