cloudstack-marketing mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Website - CloudStack Collaboration Conference NA '13
Date Sun, 21 Apr 2013 20:19:00 GMT
Hmm. Good point. Though, that depends on how likely ConCom are to turn
around and say "well, it doesn't matter that nobody responded, you have to
shut this down now." I think they would be more likely to concede it was
their mistake and not pursue it. But, I don't know. I don't even have that
much experience with them. I certainly don't speak for them.

If you want to get involved, I suggest you subscribe to
concom@apache.organd post a message. (It is a private list, but open
to all committers.)
(Admittedly, their list of mailing lists is also quite confusing...)

On 21 April 2013 20:43, Joe Brockmeier <> wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 21, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> > I wouldn't worry too much about not getting an ACK. As Ross points out,
> > it's a good enough sign that nobody cares enough to object. Which is, of
> > course, what we call lazy consensus. Which is a really great social hack,
> > if you ask me.
> In general, I agree that lazy consensus is great for a lot of decisions.
> "I'm going to do X to the Website," or "I'm merging a new feature," both
> of which allow the community to review / suggest changes, etc. Also,
> both things can easily be rolled back with revision control.
> Planning events, on the other hand... If I'm spending money to put on an
> event, I'd really like at least an ACK if I need to get permission (or
> lack of refusal) to move forward.
> What's the process for getting on ConCom? If it's so short-handed that
> even ack'ing a request is problematic, I'd like to help out.
> Best,
> jzb
> --
> Joe Brockmeier
> Twitter: @jzb


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message