It's perhaps superficial, but if you call these "working groups" then
perhaps that takes away some of the hoop-jumping perception. These are
sub-communities which try to attract people who can help to solve specific
problems. I like the scheme.
On Joseph's point 1a, I think that it would be accept
Yeah that makes an awful lot of sense. In that case, I think its a
great idea. I'm in.
-J
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Michael MacFadden
wrote:
> Joseph,
>
> I think I should make it clear that the committee has absolutely no
> authority. A committer does not have to check with a committee
Joseph,
I think I should make it clear that the committee has absolutely no
authority. A committer does not have to check with a committee to commit
something or to make a change. The committee gets no special voting
rights. The only idea of the committee is to have 2-5 people who commit
to mak
These are the steps I think we should take around the new federation protocol:
1a. Figure out a p2p-capable OT algorithm & design that we're all
happy with. Make an in-process proof-of-implementation & randomizer to
convince myself its correct & not horrendously slow.
1b. Decide what data structu
Wavers,
Apache is an open community and a do-ocracy. We don't have a hierarchical
structure and anyone is welcome to contribute in any way they wish. This is a
key principle of being an Apache project.
At the same time we need to start to have focus in several key areas in order
to progress.
