On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Martin Landa wrote:
> Dear PSC,
>
> 2015-01-08 4:02 GMT+01:00 Helena Mitasova :
>
>> I made small language edits which did not change the meaning of the document
>> and I agree with the document.
>
> thanks a lot! BTW, is there any open issue? If not, we could pr
Dear PSC,
2015-01-08 4:02 GMT+01:00 Helena Mitasova :
> I made small language edits which did not change the meaning of the document
> and I agree with the document.
thanks a lot! BTW, is there any open issue? If not, we could probably
move on towards voting?
Martin
--
Martin Landa
http://ge
On Jan 7, 2015, at 4:20 PM, Markus Neteler wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Massimiliano Cannata
> wrote:
>> Dear all, I went trough the document and it make perfectly sense to me.
>
> I agree. I updated its date now and expanded "RC" in the beginning.
>
> http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/w
Hi,
I read the document and support it,
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 10:20 PM, Markus Neteler wrote:
>
>
> Last doubts:
>
> * Step1: "The Project manager (or if exists the Release manager)
> then collects reactions to decide whether there is sufficient support
> for this proposal. "
>
> --> this
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Massimiliano Cannata
wrote:
> Dear all, I went trough the document and it make perfectly sense to me.
I agree. I updated its date now and expanded "RC" in the beginning.
http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure
Last doubts:
* Step1: "The Proj
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Martin Landa wrote:
> I would also agree with that. It would be reasonable also to set some
> deadline for discussion and then to propose voting. What do you think?
For this RFC? Yes. But I think we are pretty close now.
> I did cosmetics changes [1].
> [1]
> htt
Dear all, I went trough the document and it make perfectly sense to me.
Just a minor comment is that we shall probably clearly specify who is
responsible for the mentioned actions: call for soft, hard freeze etc.
Basically who is responsible to recall all to the respect of the mentioned
time-frame
On 06/01/15 11:25, Martin Landa wrote:
Hi all,
2014-12-30 0:29 GMT+01:00 Markus Neteler :
I agree with Maris that no feedback should be interpreted as agreement.
I would also agree with that. It would be reasonable also to set some
deadline for discussion and then to propose voting. What do
Hi all,
2014-12-30 0:29 GMT+01:00 Markus Neteler :
>> I agree with Maris that no feedback should be interpreted as agreement.
I would also agree with that. It would be reasonable also to set some
deadline for discussion and then to propose voting. What do you think?
> http://trac.osgeo.org/grass
I agree. Even if we cannot get time to look at it, we can at least check in and
say that.
Michael
C. Michael Barton
Director, Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Professor of Anthropology, School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Head, Graduate Faculty in Complex Adapti
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Helena Mitasova wrote:
> I agree with Maris that no feedback should be interpreted as agreement.
> A statement : "if there are no further comments or feedback for the 7 days,
> RC1 will be released on XXX date"
> may help in case somebody has some issues and was j
I agree with Maris that no feedback should be interpreted as agreement.
A statement : "if there are no further comments or feedback for the 7 days, RC1
will be released on XXX date"
may help in case somebody has some issues and was just delaying posting them.
Also for the PSC, it appears that th
IMHO "lack of answer" in a transparent procedure with reasonable
response windows just means "carry on, everyone agrees". Having a
fixed last date for comments might force someone to say something (or
used as an argument for STFU later).
Just my 0.02,
Māris.
2014-12-29 9:50 GMT+02:00 Markus Net
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Moritz Lennert
wrote:
> On 24/11/14 14:38, Martin Landa wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> as we are closer and closer to GRASS 7 release I would like to open
>> discussion related to "Release procedure" - RFC4 [1]. Ideally (I would
>> say) it would make sense to find a
On 24/11/14 14:38, Martin Landa wrote:
Dear all,
as we are closer and closer to GRASS 7 release I would like to open
discussion related to "Release procedure" - RFC4 [1]. Ideally (I would
say) it would make sense to find a way how accept such procedure
before we start with GRASS RCs...
Thanks f
15 matches
Mail list logo
