micah anderson wrote: > On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 01:19:30 +0100, Philip Hands <p...@hands.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:59:23 -0400, Gabriella Coleman <bie...@nyu.edu> > > wrote: > > > > > > > FWIW I agree with that and I believe queue B people should be mailed > > > I also agree to queue A to 100% and queue B to 70% now. > > > > > > Me 2. The sooner we get this news out to these folks the better. > > > > Is there any reason not to spread the good news immediately? > > Because we haven't actually decided this yet. It seems like everyone is > in favor, but if we don't give people enough time to respond, then > someone may feel their voice (which may not be in agreement) was not > heard.
I don't mind waiting for queue A since they've already received a >0% mail. I think queue B should be notified as soon as possible since so far they haven't heard anything definite about a non-zero percentage. I can send the queue B mails in the morning (EDT) if we want to wait for a greater consensus but any further delay would be a potential detriment to queue B recipients.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
