On Feb 3, 3:22 pm, kcrisman <kcris...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It sounds quite ominous. > > > I thought the exact same thing. Very unimpressed. > > Though keep in mind it's probably a first draft.
For veteran contributors the opaque (but I'm sure it will improve) policy of access to the steering committee might sound ominous. May I draw your attention to the fact that for others, esp. first time or potential contributors, similar issues apply. Recently there was the following exchange about an offered binary build for SUSE http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/a77bdb25b30c36aa Is it an idea that if a policy for the "top-down" (i.e steering committee) is formulated, there should also be a formulated policy for the "bottom up", i.e how to integrate new people in the process? Beside: Was it already mentioned that the stackoverflow sage-advertisment (which was the original starter for this thread) has already reached the critical 6 upvotes to be featured on the main pages? http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/74983/open-source-advertising-sidebar-1h-2011/77019#77019 It currently has 8 up-votes and already "overtook" some other projects which launched their adds earlier. Cheers for the the people who made this possible Niles, Eviatar, Ivan Andrus and H.Shilly :-) Maybe it is also possible to continue to improve the "landing page" http://wiki.sagemath.org/StackOverflowLanding Is it an idea to mention the pending Windows port? There were some comments about to write proposals (to get grants) for development, but I see H. Schilly has open a thread about Google SOC 2011 with no response so far. best emil -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
