On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 at 09:57, Glyph <gl...@twistedmatrix.com> wrote: > > On Jan 24, 2021, at 1:24 AM, Adi Roiban <a...@roiban.ro> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 at 04:29, Glyph <gl...@twistedmatrix.com> wrote: > >> >> On January 23, 2021 at 6:10:04 PM, Craig Rodrigues ( >> rodr...@crodrigues.org) wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 4:54 PM Glyph <gl...@twistedmatrix.com> wrote: >>> >>>> At the time the committee was created, I don’t remember if this was >>>> public, so I don’t feel comfortable sharing identities publicly because it >>>> wasn’t part of the deal at the time. This is not the way I’d structure >>>> things now, but given that several members are unresponsive and don’t seem >>>> to want to be associated with the project any more, I can’t ask them if >>>> it’s OK with them. If you can find any old public documentation feel free >>>> to share though; the issue is that I’m not sure it *has* been public. If it >>>> has, it can by all means remain public. >>>> >>>> I can at least share that as I recall there are 6 members and I’m one >>>> of them. But you’d want to confirm this with the conservancy, so please >>>> join Adi’s private thread with them for further discussion. >>>> >>> >>> Thanks for the clarification. >>> Have you recently contacted the 5 other committee members to confirm if >>> they want to remain on the committee or not, >>> and either received confirmation (or feedback timeout)? >>> >> Not recently although I’ve reached out several times in the past. I have >> no plans to reach out again until someone has worked out with the SFC what >> our options are and proposed a concrete plan. >> > I was in contact with SFC over IRC. > > The first thing that someone need to do is send a message to > twis...@sfconservancy.org > > Only after no response is received in time (I don't know how long that > is...maybe 3 weeks) we can contact SFC and they > will allocate extra resources to help solve this issue. > > I have not sent a message to that list. > For now, I don't plan to do it. > I feel there is no consensus across the current active Twisted developers. > > I encourage anyone else who wants to do it, to send the message to > twis...@sfconservancy.org > > Good luck > > > Thanks for the update, Adi; I appreciate your taking the initiative on > this. > > OK. I am a liar :) I have just sent an email to twis...@sfconservancy.org with what I think can be done to activate the committee. I added Glypt and Craig to CC.
Let me know if you are also interested in that private discussion. > If we want to have a private deliberation among committers about next > steps, I believe > https://github.com/orgs/twisted/teams/twisted-contributors/discussions makes > it possible to do that, so that might be a tool to use. > > I have created this team private thread on GitHub https://github.com/orgs/twisted/teams/twisted-contributors/discussions/1 > (To be clear, I think any conclusions from this discussions need to be > made public and transparent, but for reasons previously mentioned in this > conversation, we may want to be able to share ideas less publicly before we > pick one to avoid muddling things like future bidding on work.) > > I will try to follow up if I get something. I have also asked the committee to come back with a conclusion over the mailing list. Glyphs, I understand you very well in regard to the conflict to interest. And you are right. Nothing personal. It's just a personal frustration that we need to make extra effort, when we don't have much time and energy for code reviews. -- Adi Roiban
_______________________________________________ Twisted-Python mailing list Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com https://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
