On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 11:38:46PM +, Simon Phipps wrote:
Indeed, I agree totally. And they didn't, it was left to the
Communities. The direct recognition process is an exception-handling
process.
Yes; the volume of requests just makes it clear that we need a
higher-level
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 10:02:32AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
The system for choosing core contributors is notably flawed in that
it only recognizes people working with Communities, not Projects or
distros. (For instance, Roland wasn't initially listed because
This is not a flaw in the
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
reality. Similarly, is your qemu project affiliated with any
community? If so, ask the leaders of that community why you weren't
included.)
Exactly - that's the right place to start, not with the OGB and not
with the process itself. If the Community leaders are
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 10:25:28AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
reality. Similarly, is your qemu project affiliated with any
community? If so, ask the leaders of that community why you weren't
included.)
Exactly - that's the right place to start, not with the
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 10:25:28AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
In this case, I think it's still a follow-on of the poor initial setup
of Communities - instead of a Xen community, we should have a Virtualization
community with Xen qemu projects.
Completely agree. Nothing precludes the
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 10:25:28AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
In this case, I think it's still a follow-on of the poor initial setup
of Communities - instead of a Xen community, we should have a Virtualization
community with Xen qemu
I also think this is a good sign that the relationship between
Communities and Projects is not well understood by all participants.
There are times it hasn't been at all clear to me, at least.
Perhaps getting an endorsing community needs to be a prerequisite to
setting up a project?
--
I also think this is a good sign that the relationship between
Communities and Projects is not well understood by all participants.
There are times it hasn't been at all clear to me, at least.
Perhaps getting an endorsing community needs to be a prerequisite to
setting up a project?
Perhaps
Hi,
Speaking as the leader of the Systems Administration community, I'd
have to say that the endorsement function is a manual process and
doesn't change any community processes. It's a totally manual process
where you select from a list of projects to endorse. I haven't updated
it in a long time
I agree that communities/projects should be organized better.
Octave
--- Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
reality. Similarly, is your qemu project affiliated with any
community? If so, ask the leaders of that community why you
weren't
included.)
Hi,
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
reality. Similarly, is your qemu project affiliated with any
community? If so, ask the leaders of that community why you weren't
included.)
Exactly - that's the right place to start, not with the OGB and not
with the process itself. If the Community
On Mar 5, 2007, at 20:55, Glynn Foster wrote:
Hi,
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
reality. Similarly, is your qemu project affiliated with any
community? If so, ask the leaders of that community why you weren't
included.)
Exactly - that's the right place to start, not with the OGB and not
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 09:55:37AM +1300, Glynn Foster wrote:
But there's absolutely no consistency with that. There's no
guidelines or best practices of how to apply the membership. If one
community's interpretation of the process is easier for geting 'Core
Contributor' status compared to
Simon Phipps wrote:
On Mar 5, 2007, at 20:55, Glynn Foster wrote:
Hi,
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
reality. Similarly, is your qemu project affiliated with any
community? If so, ask the leaders of that community why you weren't
included.)
Exactly - that's the right place to start, not
On 06/03/07, Keith M Wesolowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
have very many contributors. In the long run, this suggests that
per-Community representation may someday be needed a la the United
States Senate. In the short run, it suggests that some communities
are poorly organised and led, and
On Mar 5, 2007, at 23:17, Shawn Walker wrote:
I cannot possibly agree more with this statement. This only further
supports Stephen Lau's post about why the OGB shouldn't be intimately
involved in the day-to-day processes of the community (please read the
full blog post here:
16 matches
Mail list logo
