Ok, discussion on the first 3 RFCs has gone quiet, so lets see if we can't
get another 3 ready for RFV. As promised, I'll not RFV the "Held Position"
ARs until all of the "Held Position" RFCs have come forward (and hopefully
had any kinks worked out of them). So RFC-106, RFC-264, and RFC-266 are
Ok, I think this one might be ready now for another try at an RFV, so let's
give it a shot. :)
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:BrianSchweitzer/Supporting_Release_Relationship_Type
Brian
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 5:59 AM, jacobbrett wrote:
>
>
> Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2
Nikki, I've not heard back - did you still have concerns, or is this ready
to go to RFV?
Brian
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:09 AM, Brian Schweitzer <
brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Nikki wrote:
>
>> As far as I'm aware, the idea was that this would be
Attached is the IRC chat log from this evening's (PST) chat. Thanks to
one who participated. ;-)
Paul
Welcome to part 2, the hey-I-work-for-a-living!-edition of our IRC
chat...
So, hopefully either you attended part 1, or you read today's transcript/.
Probably the best way to do this is to go
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Brian Schweitzer <
brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
>
>> Attached is the IRC chat log from this morning's (PST) chat. Thanks to
>> everyone who participated.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>
> Thanks. :)
>
> I've rea
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
> Attached is the IRC chat log from this morning's (PST) chat. Thanks to
> everyone who participated.
>
> Paul
>
Thanks. :)
I've read through the transcript, in preparation for this evening's meeting.
There's a few things I'd like to comm
Jeroen Latour wrote:
> I will send out a RFV for Writer shortly. Nikki, are you taking care of
> changing the wiki, or do you need me to do anything?
It would be better if you could update them, I'm busy today and won't be
around for most of tomorrow.
Nikki
___
Attached is the IRC chat log from this morning's (PST) chat. Thanks to
everyone who participated.
Paul
--- pbryan has changed the topic to: Agenda: Works: qualification, granularity,
hierarchy, opera/classical.
Well, it's 11:01 PST, so time to get started.
Thanks everyone for attending.
The ob
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Brian Schweitzer <
brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>- Engineer (post-RFC 251): Be as specific as possible and specify the
>>type of engineering that was performed, but only if you have a source or
>> if
>>you can deduce this information. Fo
>
>
>- Engineer (post-RFC 251): Be as specific as possible and specify the
>type of engineering that was performed, but only if you have a source or if
>you can deduce this information. For details, see the Prefer Specific
>Relationship Types guideline.
>
> Regards,
> Jeroen
>
Oh;
Thanks, those look fine to me now. You're right; I just hadn't even noticed
that bit of text at the top about these being added, until the RFV, when I
noticed it there, but no text specified.Unless you or Nikki thinks it
needs to, I don't see the need to re-RFV. I do wish my suggestion re:
ho
Hi Brian,
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Brian Schweitzer <
brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not to cause issues, Nikki, but this RFV was passed without response to my
> email of Dec 17:
It would have been helpful if you had asked these questions before giving
your go-ahead to move
12 matches
Mail list logo
