Nathan Bubna wrote:
On 8/26/06, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> "Henri Yandell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> I'm with Geir. What does dormancy have to do with it? Dormancy is
>>> the opposite of our plans.
>
>> Martin brought it up as a worry for Velocity moving to TLP.
Who started it doesn't explain what dormancy has to do with it.
Unless you guys already consider Velocity to be dormant (see below for
my disagreement there), then this is irrelevant as we are talking
about the opposite of ceasing activity.
Leaving the meaning of the word "dormant" behind me :)
The whole worry I have/had about this statement (this statement being you mentioning that with TLP
new activity will occur), is that going TLP doesn't necessarily spark activity in my opinion (maybe
just for a short time) and to put this statement into context : that is assuming no new projects
join the TLP velocity project.
Maintaining a TLP costs time and most projects that have less activity, have less activity, because
of a lack of time of the committers, the worry of the board could be that they don't see how the
project could manage itself without any people that have the time to manage it.
If understood Henri correctly, this however is something for the board to worry
about :)
Sorry for abusing your proposal as a learning ground and playing the "devil"
here :)
Always remember : I am +1 on the TLP move ;)
Mvgr,
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
