I would like to help work on a system like this. My choice would be Java
because of the AJAX libraries (especially GWT) it would bring to the table and
the organizational and workeffort modeling in OFBiz. I've already been testing
out some ideas on my high school alumni association. You can see
Bdale Garbee writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> That's a really interesting idea. On general principles, I would use such
> a thing. Are you up for drafting some sort of specification the current
> board and officers could review to see if it's something we agree would be
> an improveme
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) writes:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
>> This all needs to change.
>
> Since we're all geeks perhaps we should try to address a social
> problem with a technical solution.
>
> If I went and wrote a webform/emailscanning robo
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> This all needs to change.
Since we're all geeks perhaps we should try to address a social
problem with a technical solution.
If I went and wrote a webform/emailscanning robot which enforced these
rules and automatically prepared meeting an
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> I'm afraid that simply isn't good enough. The question should have
> been deferred as a matter of course. You shouldn't have suggested
> going ahead with it anyway, and the rest of the board should not have
> acquiesced.
Let me expand on t
Bdale Garbee writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) writes:
> > Excellent. Can you explain why it wasn't followed in this case ?
>
> Because I violated it. I apparently dropped the ball on getting the
> final text of the resolution to the secr
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) writes:
> Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
>> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 17:00 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> > Do you support Resolution 2007-01-16-iwj.5.html ?
>>
>> I do not have a problem with that resolution.
>
> Excellent.
Jimmy Kaplowitz writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> Please reread the announcement. It explicitly mentioned that there was a
> possibility of one or two associated project resolutions being brought up,
> where the associated projects in question had been discussed with the
> contributing m
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:57:51AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> And actually now that I look at the meeting announcement, it stated
> there were no motions and the agenda says that privoxy was up for
> discussion. So I guess I am confused as to why there was a vote at all.
Please reread the ann
On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 17:38 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> > On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 17:00 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > (b) you agree with me that there should be more transparency
> > > and feel that in future a different process wit
Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 17:00 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > (b) you agree with me that there should be more transparency
> > and feel that in future a different process with greater
> > transparency would be better.
>
> b.
Grea
DRAFT RESOLUTION 2008-12-19.iwj.1
WHEREAS
1. The Board and Secretary have found it difficult to provide the
level of openness and consultation set out in 2007-01-16.iwj.1.
THEREFORE
2. The Board reaffirms `Whereas' paragraphs 1-4 of 2007-01-16.iwj.1.
3. The Board reaffirms `Resolved that' p
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > I recall a motion that said we should discuss on private (I could be off
> > my rocker) but the thing is... the *only* people that can do anything
> > about what you are arguing is contributing members. E.g; they are the
> > ones that can vote. So
On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 17:00 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> (b) you agree with me that there should be more transparency
> and feel that in future a different process with greater
> transparency would be better.
>
> or something
MJ Ray writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> Just to refresh members' memory, the email about Privoxy to
> spi-private dated Fri Aug 15 22:04:19 UTC 2008 proposed:-
>
> The first liason would be [Fabian Keil]. The liason can be changed
>by any of the Project Admins as listed on the SF p
Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 13:50 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > > > [Ian Jackson:]
> > > > > > For other kinds of resolutions there are of course other isomorphic
> > > > > > problems. That is why THE MEMBERSHIP MUST BE GIVEN THE CHANCE T
On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 13:50 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I don't know honestly but what I do know is that there are many
> > contributing members that do not bother to read let alone subscribe to
> > -general.
>
> It's easy to paint the bikeshed of what list to give notice to. It
> would be
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 08:42:45AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> I recall a motion that said we should discuss on private (I could be off
> my rocker) but the thing is... the *only* people that can do anything
> about what you are arguing is contributing members. E.g; they are the
> ones that can
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 16:27 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> > > On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 10:13 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > > For other kinds of resolutions there are of course other isomorphic
> > > > problems. Th
On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 16:27 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> > On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 10:13 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > For other kinds of resolutions there are of course other isomorphic
> > > problems. That is why THE MEMBERSHIP MUST BE
Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 10:13 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > For other kinds of resolutions there are of course other isomorphic
> > problems. That is why THE MEMBERSHIP MUST BE GIVEN THE CHANCE TO
> > COMMENT!
>
> Wouldn't it make sense t
On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 10:13 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> MJ Ray writes ("Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> > [item 7.1, Resolution 2008.12.17.bg.1 - Privoxy as associated
> project]
> For other kinds of resolutions there are of course other isomorphic
> problems. That is why THE MEMBERSHIP MUST BE G
Ian Jackson wrote: [...]
> The membership should have the chance to review all of the important
> content of a resolution beforehand (unless it's an emergency of
> course). That _includes_ stuff like the people we recognise as being
> in charge. [...]
Just to refresh members' memory, the email a
MJ Ray writes ("Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> [item 7.1, Resolution 2008.12.17.bg.1 - Privoxy as associated project]
>
> luk_: I think the three folks listed in the resolution are the
> three primary commiters. privoxy.org is the web site for the project,
> I believe.
I'm terribly sorry to kee
24 matches
Mail list logo
