On Sep 2, 2014, at 12:07 PM, edhelas <edhe...@movim.eu> wrote: > So, do we decide something for the next meeting ? > I don't want to forgot this thing… one more time.
Forget what? I thought we had consensus before use of an external git repo would be limited. I don't quite understand why that should be revisited. I note that before the decision on the external git repo hosting was a board decision, which is where I think such decisions belong (if not at the executive director or with teams). I think questions to the membership should be very high level such as "We want an issue tracker" not "Outsource the issue tracker to vendor X". But I don't think we need to vote on a "We want an issue tracker". The board, I think, knows this is something the membership desires, or at least enough of the membership desires, to take appropriate action. The details should be left to them and those they delegate execution to. > We really need a new tool to track our issues so let's do it ! Personally, I think the value of tracking tools is overrated. But guess I've been exposed to far too many trackers full of dozens of open issues which no body has a real plan to address. That said, I don't object to one being deployed so long as its use is optional by authors. I'll stick to good old email. -- Kurt > > On mar., sept. 2, 2014 at 4:18 , Kurt Zeilenga <kurt.zeile...@isode.com> > wrote: >> >> On Sep 2, 2014, at 5:56 AM, Kurt Zeilenga <kurt.zeile...@isode.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:17 AM, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote: >>> >>>> I don't know if Kurt would refuse to >>> >>> As I do XEP work as an employee, it's a personal decision. I'd have to ask >>> my employer, which I'm not going to until it become necessary. >> >> ^it's^it's not^ >> >>> >>> I note that I would note to my employer that there's always the option to >>> submit patches by email, hence avoiding their need to agree to such terms. >>> >>> I do note of course that if posted to a provider with such terms, someone >>> else must have agreed to the terms. It's the poster not that author >>> that's doing the indemnification. I'm kind of surprised that someone is >>> indemnifying the provider for all XEP contributions, but if that's what >>> they want to do.... >>> >>> -- Kurt >>
