On 08/21/2015 11:02 PM, Joshua Hesketh wrote: > I'm struggling to think of a way this might help enable discussions between > nominees and voters about their platforms. Since the tooling will send out > the nomination announcements the only real noise that is reduced is the > "nomination confirmed" type emails. > > While I think this sounds really neat, I'm not convinced that it'll > actually reduce noise on the mailing list if that was the goal. I realise > the primary goal is to help the election officials, but perhaps we can > achieve both of these by a separate mailing list for both nomination > announcements and also platform discussions? This could be a first step and > then once we have the tooling to confirm a nominees validity we could > automate that first announcement email still.
Separate repo, separate mailing list, the thing I think we agree on is separation. I personally didn't want to get into the tussle that is having a separate mailing list so thought up separate repo as something that is different enough it didnt' have a past history of needing to drag in prior arguments. It is up to the officials but I definitely agree that tooling/workflow needs to be adjusted to address the increase in volume of candidates that will need to be tended to during the upcoming election cycle. Thanks, Anita. > > Just a thought anyway. > > Cheers, > Josh > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 5:44 AM, Anita Kuno <ante...@anteaya.info> wrote: > >> On 08/21/2015 03:37 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: >>> On 2015-08-21 14:32:50 -0400 (-0400), Anita Kuno wrote: >>>> Personally I would recommend that the election officials have >>>> verification permissions on the proposed repo and the automation >>>> step is skipped to begin with as a way of expediting the repo >>>> creation. Getting the workflow in place in enough time that >>>> potential candidates can familiarize themselves with the change, >>>> is of primary importance I feel. Automation can happen after the >>>> workflow is in place. >>> >>> Agreed, I'm just curious what our options actually are for >>> automating the confirmation research currently performed. It's >>> certainly not a prerequisite for using the new repo/workflow in a >>> manually-driven capacity in the meantime. >>> >> >> Fair enough. I don't want to answer the question myself as I feel it's >> best for the response to come from current election officials. >> >> Thanks Jeremy, >> Anita. >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
