Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-community-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-community-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 14B5B10F9C for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:01:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 12559 invoked by uid 500); 10 Feb 2014 14:01:20 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-community-dev-archive@community.apache.org Received: (qmail 12448 invoked by uid 500); 10 Feb 2014 14:01:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@community.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@community.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@community.apache.org Received: (qmail 12439 invoked by uid 99); 10 Feb 2014 14:01:19 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:01:19 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy includes SPF record at spf.trusted-forwarder.org) Received: from [76.96.30.48] (HELO qmta05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net) (76.96.30.48) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:01:10 +0000 Received: from omta09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.20]) by qmta05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Qdl11n0040S2fkCA5e0ps7; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:00:49 +0000 Received: from [192.168.199.10] ([69.251.80.74]) by omta09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Qe0n1n00J1cCKD98Ve0om1; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:00:49 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1873\)) Subject: Re: How can we support a faster release cadence? From: Jim Jagielski In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:00:46 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <412BF786-661F-497D-87A5-B223B601A8B4@jaguNET.com> References: To: dev@community.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1873) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1392040849; bh=FCRZq6VdtIG86MVHRrSpZ81nSkzHTrkK1uhOop4YD8c=; h=Received:Received:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:Date: Message-Id:To; b=ZsotEAD7nNBtrk1+9HMYtNlPQnCj/pwuiSUATPMQhA7rOyHmsz7zVrlst8v+UEEeh aPW/ugA1zOqT6DnY2rKyQ/IHruMmNYdtqjMf4cft9wLXs5+WYqfLqO2M1qSJa2TISX nugfimr6WGJyqmQFd2GttP37TpabMML0qBjCqSDKSKD7wFRT1ha+mXs9TW0H18KyF1 Vhj5tkozJ9UOsprWmH9ZB1o/E5x8T/JuOZx6MTq3kZYvN4tvT1NgD1XyVJXhhsFXIg SslvHYDheGZWZaDrIVwCJ6i+xhR12lxc8hhdM6A1GF3t3kTCm8TSsjXlBKmCbmWbxk m3lc2gx07m5aQ== X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Feb 10, 2014, at 8:48 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > > In other words, an automated process can still allow for completely > inclusive participation. > I never said that it couldn't. I just wanted everyone to recall that inclusivity is a major aspect of how PMC's (should) operate.