Le 23/12/2013 21:04, Andrea Pescetti a écrit :
Hagar Delest wrote:
Le 23/12/2013 17:32, jan i a écrit :
I have no idea
where the "lazy consensus" on sysadms goes. I am afraid we end in the
same situation as last, lazy consensus == yes, but the people involved
(vm-team) have not responded positively.
Well, in this case, I guess we have to be proactive. If we wait after
the Christmas and New Year break, I propose that your proposal ([LAZY
CONSENSUS] maintenance of ooo-wiki2-vm.a.o and ooo-forums.a.o) gets
adopted by lazy consensus if no one objects.
This is why it is named "lazy consensus"! No need to invoke lazy
consensus on lazy consensus... If nobody objects to the proposal by 2
January, the proposal passes. This is simply how it works.
Jan's concern was over the fact that he names other people in his
proposal (me included) as part of the team. If these people do not
explicitly agree by 2 January, it is unfair to put them in the team,
even though they will be welcome to join at any later moment.
But I would find it stupid to drop the entire proposal if this
happens. Even if only 2-3 people from the proposed team of 4 give an
explicit approval, we need to start with those or we'll never move
forward. And, immediately after starting, I would call for other
members to complete the team.
In fact what I had in mind is to approve the proposal, even if there is
no reply at all and that Jan is the only member of the team.
Regarding the forum, we don't need someone to be available on a daily
basis. Today we have almost nobody. So having someone sometime for at
least major problems (there are very few of them but they need to be
fixed) would be a major step.
Hagar
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
