Am 09.06.2017 um 16:58 schrieb Sam Whited:
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
I'm considering advising Board that we should address this by
instituting a policy whereby changes to XEPs result in all listed
authors being notified (a PR will do, I imagine), and those who do no
On 6/9/17 8:58 AM, Sam Whited wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
>> I'm considering advising Board that we should address this by
>> instituting a policy whereby changes to XEPs result in all listed
>> authors being notified (a PR will do, I imagine), and those who do no
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> I'm considering advising Board that we should address this by
> instituting a policy whereby changes to XEPs result in all listed
> authors being notified (a PR will do, I imagine), and those who do not
> respond within a reasonable time (hand
On 6/9/17 8:13 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On 9 June 2017 at 14:35, Kevin Smith wrote:
>> I like the contributors idea. It avoids the “Someone submitting a one-off
>> significant patch, so should be added do Authors even though they’ll never
>> do anything again” issue that we sometimes see.
>
>
On 9 June 2017 at 14:35, Kevin Smith wrote:
> I like the contributors idea. It avoids the “Someone submitting a one-off
> significant patch, so should be added do Authors even though they’ll never do
> anything again” issue that we sometimes see.
I also like contributors, but I also worry that
On 9 Jun 2017, at 14:08, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>
> On 6/9/17 5:37 AM, Philipp Hancke wrote:
>>> However, I don't think this is particularly contentious. We have lots
>>> of documents for which one of the "Authors" hasn't made any input for
>>> several revisions.
>>
>> See the Jingle XEPs for
On 6/9/17 5:37 AM, Philipp Hancke wrote:
>> However, I don't think this is particularly contentious. We have lots
>> of documents for which one of the "Authors" hasn't made any input for
>> several revisions.
>
> See the Jingle XEPs for example. I doubt the Google folks listed as
> authors have l
However, I don't think this is particularly contentious. We have lots
of documents for which one of the "Authors" hasn't made any input for
several revisions.
See the Jingle XEPs for example. I doubt the Google folks listed as
authors have looked at this spec in a _decade_ (and at least one of
I'm not dead set against defining "previous authors". The only disadvantage
that I see is introducing more complexity to the editorial process. If that
is needed to resolve issues, legal or otherwise, we should accept that.
On 9 June 2017 at 12:41, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On 9 June 2017 at 08:49,
On 9 Jun 2017, at 11:41, Dave Cridland wrote:
> However, I don't think this is particularly contentious.
> I see, on the other hand, no advantage to *not* having a Previous
> Authors section
This seems like a sensible change to me, whether driven by Dave’s
non-lawyerness or not.
/K
__
On 9 June 2017 at 08:49, Guus der Kinderen wrote:
> You're making sense to me (which appears to be a habit of yours *hattip*).
>
> Dave's original question was if he should propose a policy change to the
> Board. Although Dave certainly has a keen perspective of things, I think he
> falls in the "
You're making sense to me (which appears to be a habit of yours *hattip*).
Dave's original question was if he should propose a policy change to the
Board. Although Dave certainly has a keen perspective of things, I think he
falls in the "engineer" category, more than in the "legal counsel"
categor
12 matches
Mail list logo