On Sunday, March 8, 2015, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 08/03/2015 Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>
>>> What about actually doing something?
>>>
>> That, sir, is insulting. If you want to propose a resolution,
>> do so, but please do not attempt to
On 08/03/2015 Simon Phipps wrote:
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
What about actually doing something?
That, sir, is insulting. If you want to propose a resolution,
do so, but please do not attempt to hand out jobs.
Volunteering to do something is much more appreciated
Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 07/03/2015 Dave Barton wrote:
>> Simon Phipps wrote:
>>> when one does not have access to the privileged
>>> conversations of the PMC, actions that use those conversations as
>>> justification appear hostile, as do dismissive PMC member reactions
>
> Well, if it is true
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Andrea Pescetti
wrote:
> You are suggesting a usage pattern of the private list that is far beyond
> reality.
>
I am not. I am pointing out there is no way for me to know, and that the
strong reactions to Dave's original (modest & reasonable) question as well
as
On 07/03/2015 Dave Barton wrote:
Simon Phipps wrote:
when one does not have access to the privileged
conversations of the PMC, actions that use those conversations as
justification appear hostile, as do dismissive PMC member reactions
Well, if it is true (and it is true) that the private list
Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> wrote:
>
>> I'll ask one more time. What action is expected here on dev@ to impact
>> how the PMC uses private@ ?
>>
>
> I don't think there is any action that can be taken on dev@ beyond pointing
> out to others here th
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> I'll ask one more time. What action is expected here on dev@ to impact
> how the PMC uses private@ ?
>
I don't think there is any action that can be taken on dev@ beyond pointing
out to others here that, when one does not have access t
jan i wrote:
On Saturday, March 7, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
If you mean the over-use of private@ by the PMC, is there an issue to
discuss? Those of us on the PMC need to be attentive to minimizing private@
Well look at the numbers, I did not publish the numbers for 2014, but you
will s
5 10:03
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org
Subject: Re: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC
FAQ update
On Saturday, March 7, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> I am not certain exactly what issue is proposed to be discussed here.
>
> If you mean the
k about relative silence of PMC, but of committer and
contributors.
rgds
jan i
>
> -Original Message-
> From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org ]
> Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2015 01:11
> To: jan i
> Cc: dev
> Subject: community communication versus private PMC commun
xpect that would not resonate
on dev@, user@, or the forums.
-Original Message-
From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org]
Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2015 01:11
To: jan i
Cc: dev
Subject: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ
update
Just realized, that many might
Just realized, that many might jump over the old subject.
This issue is an important issue and should not be hidden behind another
subject.
rgds
jan i.
On 7 March 2015 at 10:03, jan i wrote:
>
>
> On 7 March 2015 at 01:55, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Andrea Pesce
12 matches
Mail list logo
