On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Juan C. Sanz wrote:
> El 08/06/2012 1:22, Rob Weir escribió:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> +1 on this
On the June Status report thread, Ross raises this concern:
"The issue here should not be a different class of contributor it should be
how to facilitate a different type of contribution and thus bootstrap their
involvement in the project. Please don't create an artificial layer of
hierarchy in o
El 08/06/2012 1:22, Rob Weir escribió:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
+1 on this discussion so far.
I was skeptical but I favor how this is going.
Also, the anonymo
On 6/8/12 9:09 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> My question is "is it necessary". See my overlapping post.
>
> Essentially, why is it perceived that an iCLA is needed for initial
> contributions via Pootle. Aren't they roughly equivalent to patches via
> bugzilla? Shouldn't we be working on the workflow
My question is "is it necessary". See my overlapping post.
Essentially, why is it perceived that an iCLA is needed for initial
contributions via Pootle. Aren't they roughly equivalent to patches via
bugzilla? Shouldn't we be working on the workflow to ensure contribution is
as easy as possible?
R
On Jun 7, 2012, at 5:50 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 7, 2012, at 4:30 PM, RGB ES wrote:
>>
>>> 2012/6/8 Rob Weir :
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Jun 7, 2012, at 4:30 PM, RGB ES wrote:
>
>> 2012/6/8 Rob Weir :
>>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
On Jun 7, 2012, at 4:30 PM, RGB ES wrote:
> 2012/6/8 Rob Weir :
>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> +1 on this discussion so far.
>
2012/6/8 Rob Weir :
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>>> wrote:
>>>
+1 on this discussion so far.
I was skeptical but I favor how this is going.
>
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>> +1 on this discussion so far.
>>>
>>> I was skeptical but I favor how this is going.
>>>
>>> Also, the anonymous contribution
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton >wrote:
> >
> >> +1 on this discussion so far.
> >>
> >> I was skeptical but I favor how this is going.
> >>
> >> Also, the anonymous con
On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>
>> +1 on this discussion so far.
>>
>> I was skeptical but I favor how this is going.
>>
>> Also, the anonymous contribution to pootle is a no-no.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> PS: Changing to
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> +1 on this discussion so far.
>
> I was skeptical but I favor how this is going.
>
> Also, the anonymous contribution to pootle is a no-no.
>
> - Dennis
>
> PS: Changing to the [DISCUSS] that is called for and to have it be visible.
>
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
