On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> 2011/8/11 Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@googlemail.com> > > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 10 Aug 2011, at 23:12, Rob Weir wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Ross Gardler < > > > rgard...@opendirective.com>wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> On 8 August 2011 16:14, Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> ... > > > >>> > > > >>>> From my perspective, I don't see the one BIG list as bad, but it > > would > > > be > > > >>>> VERY helpful if folks could label messages more succinctly and > > > restrict > > > >>>> discussion to rather specific aspects. > > > >>> > > > >>> +1 > > > >>> > > > >>> Not to mention useful subject lines (take a look at what the > original > > > >>> subject was for the thread I took this from - I didn't edit the > > > >>> original and it is not truncated) > > > >>> > > > >>>> And, documenting what's been discussed is CRITICAL! It is madness > to > > > try > > > >>> to > > > >>>> sift through these messages to get to the "implementable" aspects. > > > >>> > > > >>> +1 > > > >>> > > > >>> I really like the practice I see in some communities where someone > > > >>> will take long rambling threads and post a "[summary] foo bar" mail > > > >>> the the thread periodically. This is brilliant for those needing to > > > >>> catch up and also acts as a description of "impementable" > conclusions > > > >>> and community consensus that is emerging. > > > >>> > > > >>> Ross > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> Great idea if we could find a volunteer! I tried to do this (only > > once) > > > on > > > >> the "refactoring discussion" but I'll tell you some of these > > discussions > > > are > > > >> SO lengthy it's impossible. > > > >> > > > >> Maybe we'll do better (and some good soul will step up for the > > > documentation > > > >> aspects) if we can adhere to some discussion standards. > > > >> > > > > > > > > We have a mailing lists page: > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html > > > > > > > > A list of proposed subject tags would fit very well there, after the > > > > first paragraph. Committers can easily edit this using the Apache > > > > CMS in their browsers: > > > > > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/docs/edit-cms.html > > > > > > > > For example, I just added the link the email tips earlier today. > > > > > > It would be better to put the list of subject tags on the community > wiki > > so > > > that those of us who've not been invited to be committers can also edit > > it. > > > > > > > where is the problem here, if you want to be a committer you know the > rules > > and can follow them. I don't see a real problem if you contribute > valuable > > content to the project. If you should have a problem with the iCLA then > it > > is your problem. > > > > I'm not sure this is an appropriate topic to discuss here, but that strong > comment begs a one-time response. Apart from the big, atypical, unmetered > sign-up at the start of the project (in which I did not participate as I > have too much respect for the term "committer" at Apache to want to get the > role that way), the only way I am aware of to become one is to be invited > by > the PPMC. I've made a variety of contributions to this Apache project since > it was proposed and they speak for themselves. please accept my apologies if you feel attacked. I highly appreciate your contributions and my comment wasn't against you. A committer don't have to be a code committer only as you know, so i don't see a problem for you to become a committer. > As for the ICLA, I have not > commented on it, I am not sure what you're implying and I suggest you avoid > further accusations. > forget it, it was a stupid comment from my side. Probably my long history and the never ending story around the former SCA makes me sensitive and i think it's simply annoying when people don't want to become a committer because of the iCLA. I know that is not true for you. So again sorry. > > > > And by the way new tags will or should be discussed here anyway and > > probably some of the committers will add new approved tags quite fast. > > > > Maybe. But I see no reason why this list needs the protection of being on a > controlled access page and would suggest doing so is what needs justifying. > I have not seen a reasoned counter to my proposal for it to be on the > community wiki, so will probably create such a page soon (unless someone > else wants to). > I think Rob has already pointed out why the list of tags besides the mailing list is a good idea and i support it. Juergen > S. >
