From dev-return-76740-apmail-httpd-dev-archive=httpd.apache.org@httpd.apache.org Tue Jan 22 22:52:53 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5E2FBEE96 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:52:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 59981 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jan 2013 22:52:52 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 59931 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jan 2013 22:52:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 59919 invoked by uid 99); 22 Jan 2013 22:52:52 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:52:52 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.20.83.52] (HELO gungnir.webthing.com) (209.20.83.52) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:52:43 +0000 Received: from [192.168.2.6] (unknown [87.114.75.52]) by gungnir.webthing.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5D3731281C8 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:52:20 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Subject: Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org? From: Nick Kew In-Reply-To: <50FF12CC.5050504@cord.dk> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:52:18 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <576F6156-D7E7-4E2D-9CC7-87C35084A90C@webthing.com> References: <50FB2BA0.2020906@cord.dk> <50FF12CC.5050504@cord.dk> To: dev@httpd.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:29, Daniel Gruno wrote: > This will be done by lazy consensus; If I hear no complaints within the > next 72 hours, I will consider the subject agreed upon and start > upgrading the site to the new system. I object! Not to the proposal: I have yet to review your candidate site. But to the 72 hour timescale. You should give it at least a weekend, and then however long it takes to resolve any discussions arising. The problem then comes when some discussion thread(s) get stuck in a dead end. Then you drop a 72-hour ultimatum on it! -- Nick Kew