[csw-maintainers] RFD: Releases and staging proposal
Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski
maciej at opencsw.org
Wed Feb 3 10:53:22 CET 2010
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> wrote:
> Claiming where "we want to be", is a very strongly worded statement. I
> think it is inappropriate to make such a statement of "what we want",
> until a majority of "members" have actually voted that to be so.
> While I recognize that a nice chunk of folks discussed it at the
> Wintercamp (and I regret that due to financial reasons and scheduling
> I could not make it), that group of people did not constitute a voting
> majority, as far as I am aware.
We're at an earlier step right now. The document is yet to be
discussed, that's why it has been sent here. It's a result of work of
a number of people, now put up for discussion in the larger circles.
I think it's silly to write "Where we would want to be if we have
already voted" and then change it back after the voting. Also, "where
we want to be" is just an expression. It could have been "the target
state" or any other expression meaning roughly the same thing. If you
would like to suggest a better wording, please go ahead.
I can understand the financial and scheduling reasons, if the meeting
was on the other side of Atlantic, I don't know if I could make it
either. It's a pity, everybody on the Wintercamp would have loved if
you were coming over to Munich. We've actually discussed options for
meeting in which both sides of Atlantic could participate. I don't
think it's realistic to plan regular transatlantic flights for OpenCSW
camps. Instead, we could think of booking some time together and
meeting over a VC link.
Back to the document, perhaps I didn't make it clear that it's a
draft. I've added a note on top of the page. I assume it will be now
understood that all the "X is Y" or "X will be Y" expressions mean "X
will be Y once the document is approved".
More information about the maintainers