I'm also not super keen on the "not directly affiliated with the proposer's
employer”. I think this will put unnecessary strain on the community. Take
the Fauxton and Nano.js project. The majority of work on those projects
come from IBM affiliated developers. We do have a smaller group of
Hi,
Thanks. I'll make another attempt to sway others, and I'd like to hear
from more people on this thread.
I don't see the harm in this, it would rarely if ever be invoked, and
it allows us to point to a concrete, solid action we have taken to
ensure we don't have a runaway project in the
Hi,
Sure.
Any member of the PMC who is railroading changes through on behalf of their
employer to the detriment of this project should be disciplined, ultimately
losing their PMC membership (and their binding vote on future changes).
The "not directly affiliated with proposer's employer”
Hi Robert,
Care to give any more detail on your -1?
I gave a fairly extensive argument as to why I think such a
safeguard is important for our community. I also feel it would
be meaningless to push through an RFC without community support.
But our current bylaws would make this very
I am +1 on the RFC’s and -1 on the "not directly affiliated with the proposer's
employer” item.
B.
> On 13 Feb 2019, at 11:13, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> Sounds fantastic, thanks too for the additional context! I’d love for us to
> lead the way here (yet again).
>
> Best
> Jan
> —
>
>> On 12.
