Mailing-List: contact apachecon-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: apachecon-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4DDD4426.9070201@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 13:02:14 -0500
From: "William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: apachecon-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: How public is public?
References: <4DD77302.2040802@apache.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105231407380.29085@urchin.earth.li>
 <4DDA795F.7030502@rowe-clan.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105231658100.29085@urchin.earth.li>
 <4DDA870C.8030203@apache.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105251758430.29085@urchin.earth.li>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105251758430.29085@urchin.earth.li>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 5/25/2011 12:19 PM, Nick Burch wrote:
> 
> One question though is on approval for events - where would this happen? Especially for
> small events that are seeking a budget, should that be on the open list or something like
> concom@?

Draft submitted via wiki, details drilled down on the open list.  The voting
itself and confidential concerns can obviously be taken up by concom-internal...
but the results disclosed on the public list.  Heck, votes could even be tallied
on the wiki, sparing both lists +1 noise.

> I'm torn here, I'm not sure about doing that on an open list (in the way that
> lots of PMCs do committer votes in private). However, most proposals change slightly and
> get some good feedback in the approval step, and that feels to me like the
> feedback/comment bits should be on the list that the proposal is worked up on. Hmm...

Yes, the goal should be as much discussion on the public list as possible.
Only issues involving people and internal concom mechanics (moving budget
moneys around etc) should be taken to the private list.