[xwiki-devs] [VOTE] XWiki.org governance (take 2)
Hi everyone, I'd like to move this topic forward. Thus I've now created a draft of the XWiki.org Governance that gathers what I had proposed at http://markmail.org/message/fxqvprtbb5vyog6g The Governance page is currently at: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/Governance Please review it and vote. The idea is then to move it to http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/Governance in a few days. As usual, non committers don't have binding votes but are still very much encouraged to give their opinions. Their voice is especially more important on this topic since most committers are from XWiki SAS and thus I feel we need at least a general agreement from the community at large before doing anything. Thanks a lot -Vincent
Hi, On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'd like to move this topic forward. Thus I've now created a draft of the XWiki.org Governance that gathers what I had proposed at http://markmail.org/message/fxqvprtbb5vyog6g
The Governance page is currently at: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/Governance
Sounds good overall. As one could expect, the 2 gray areas to me are: "The notion of active is currently left to the appreciation of the XWiki Committers." and "Right now the definition of contribution level is not strictly defined" I would be ok to go ahead without those 2 specified more closely but I'd be in favor of defining at least a loose metric or some indicators that would be publicly displayed somewhere so that anyone could come and see for himself, "this is where most commits come from". Some kind of public dashboard maybe, similar to the one we have at: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/ProjectHealth but updated in real time with the names of the committers & their number of commits - if that's doable of course. WDYT? Guillaume
Please review it and vote. The idea is then to move it to http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/Governance in a few days.
As usual, non committers don't have binding votes but are still very much encouraged to give their opinions. Their voice is especially more important on this topic since most committers are from XWiki SAS and thus I feel we need at least a general agreement from the community at large before doing anything.
Thanks a lot -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Guillaume Lerouge Product Manager - XWiki SAS Skype: wikibc Twitter: glerouge http://guillaumelerouge.com/
On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'd like to move this topic forward. Thus I've now created a draft of the XWiki.org Governance that gathers what I had proposed at http://markmail.org/message/fxqvprtbb5vyog6g
The Governance page is currently at: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/Governance
Sounds good overall. As one could expect, the 2 gray areas to me are:
"The notion of active is currently left to the appreciation of the XWiki Committers." and "Right now the definition of contribution level is not strictly defined"
I would be ok to go ahead without those 2 specified more closely but I'd be in favor of defining at least a loose metric or some indicators that would be publicly displayed somewhere so that anyone could come and see for himself, "this is where most commits come from". Some kind of public dashboard maybe, similar to the one we have at: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/ProjectHealth but updated in real time with the names of the committers & their number of commits - if that's doable of course.
WDYT?
For the second once I've defined some loose metrics already. Don't you agree with them? I could just remove "Right now the definition of contribution level is not strictly defined" if we agree. For the first one, if we really want a definition (I'm not sure we need one and the pb with one is that it'll never be strictly enforced and would be too rigid IMO) there's the one I suggested, which is one commit every month but the pb with that kind of metric is that you could just do a code reformatting and be done with it. That's why I don't like strict metric in this case. Now you could say "significative commit" but then you need to define "significative". IMO it's very easy for a human to judge if someone is active or not and then the committers can decide together to remove someone from the list if they judge that the company is not participating anymore and doesn't deserve to be listed. So it would work like this: * a company has one committer active at some point, it's listed * after some time the company doesn't participate anymore * at some point someone in the community notices it and the committers decide what to do with its listing In any case a governance isn't static. We'll refine it as we progress and anyone can propose variations to it. I feel that there's enough in there to get started. WDYT? Thanks -Vincent
Guillaume
Please review it and vote. The idea is then to move it to http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/Governance in a few days.
As usual, non committers don't have binding votes but are still very much encouraged to give their opinions. Their voice is especially more important on this topic since most committers are from XWiki SAS and thus I feel we need at least a general agreement from the community at large before doing anything.
Thanks a lot -Vincent
On 03/16/2010 11:02 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'd like to move this topic forward. Thus I've now created a draft of the XWiki.org Governance that gathers what I had proposed at http://markmail.org/message/fxqvprtbb5vyog6g
The Governance page is currently at: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/Governance
Sounds good overall. As one could expect, the 2 gray areas to me are:
"The notion of active is currently left to the appreciation of the XWiki Committers." and "Right now the definition of contribution level is not strictly defined"
I would be ok to go ahead without those 2 specified more closely but I'd be in favor of defining at least a loose metric or some indicators that would be publicly displayed somewhere so that anyone could come and see for himself, "this is where most commits come from". Some kind of public dashboard maybe, similar to the one we have at: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/ProjectHealth but updated in real time with the names of the committers& their number of commits - if that's doable of course.
WDYT?
For the second once I've defined some loose metrics already. Don't you agree with them? I could just remove "Right now the definition of contribution level is not strictly defined" if we agree.
LOC is never a good measure, since it leaves one of the biggest loopholes in tricking the measurement. Maybe HLOC (Honest LOC) :)
For the first one, if we really want a definition (I'm not sure we need one and the pb with one is that it'll never be strictly enforced and would be too rigid IMO) there's the one I suggested, which is one commit every month but the pb with that kind of metric is that you could just do a code reformatting and be done with it. That's why I don't like strict metric in this case. Now you could say "significative commit" but then you need to define "significative". IMO it's very easy for a human to judge if someone is active or not and then the committers can decide together to remove someone from the list if they judge that the company is not participating anymore and doesn't deserve to be listed.
Well, we're (True) Open Source, we're Not Evil, let's trust the community.
So it would work like this: * a company has one committer active at some point, it's listed * after some time the company doesn't participate anymore * at some point someone in the community notices it and the committers decide what to do with its listing
In any case a governance isn't static. We'll refine it as we progress and anyone can propose variations to it. I feel that there's enough in there to get started.
WDYT?
Thanks -Vincent
Guillaume
Please review it and vote. The idea is then to move it to http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/Governance in a few days.
As usual, non committers don't have binding votes but are still very much encouraged to give their opinions. Their voice is especially more important on this topic since most committers are from XWiki SAS and thus I feel we need at least a general agreement from the community at large before doing anything.
-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
On Mar 16, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 03/16/2010 11:02 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'd like to move this topic forward. Thus I've now created a draft of the XWiki.org Governance that gathers what I had proposed at http://markmail.org/message/fxqvprtbb5vyog6g
The Governance page is currently at: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/Governance
Sounds good overall. As one could expect, the 2 gray areas to me are:
"The notion of active is currently left to the appreciation of the XWiki Committers." and "Right now the definition of contribution level is not strictly defined"
I would be ok to go ahead without those 2 specified more closely but I'd be in favor of defining at least a loose metric or some indicators that would be publicly displayed somewhere so that anyone could come and see for himself, "this is where most commits come from". Some kind of public dashboard maybe, similar to the one we have at: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/ProjectHealth but updated in real time with the names of the committers& their number of commits - if that's doable of course.
WDYT?
For the second once I've defined some loose metrics already. Don't you agree with them? I could just remove "Right now the definition of contribution level is not strictly defined" if we agree.
LOC is never a good measure, since it leaves one of the biggest loopholes in tricking the measurement. Maybe HLOC (Honest LOC) :)
Yes I hate LOCs too. # of Active committers is enough for me. WDYT?
For the first one, if we really want a definition (I'm not sure we need one and the pb with one is that it'll never be strictly enforced and would be too rigid IMO) there's the one I suggested, which is one commit every month but the pb with that kind of metric is that you could just do a code reformatting and be done with it. That's why I don't like strict metric in this case. Now you could say "significative commit" but then you need to define "significative". IMO it's very easy for a human to judge if someone is active or not and then the committers can decide together to remove someone from the list if they judge that the company is not participating anymore and doesn't deserve to be listed.
Well, we're (True) Open Source, we're Not Evil, let's trust the community.
Yep :) Thanks -Vincent
So it would work like this: * a company has one committer active at some point, it's listed * after some time the company doesn't participate anymore * at some point someone in the community notices it and the committers decide what to do with its listing
In any case a governance isn't static. We'll refine it as we progress and anyone can propose variations to it. I feel that there's enough in there to get started.
WDYT?
Thanks -Vincent
Guillaume
Please review it and vote. The idea is then to move it to http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/Governance in a few days.
As usual, non committers don't have binding votes but are still very much encouraged to give their opinions. Their voice is especially more important on this topic since most committers are from XWiki SAS and thus I feel we need at least a general agreement from the community at large before doing anything.
-- Sergiu Dumitriu
On 03/16/2010 11:37 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Mar 16, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 03/16/2010 11:02 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'd like to move this topic forward. Thus I've now created a draft of the XWiki.org Governance that gathers what I had proposed at http://markmail.org/message/fxqvprtbb5vyog6g
The Governance page is currently at: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/Governance
Sounds good overall. As one could expect, the 2 gray areas to me are:
"The notion of active is currently left to the appreciation of the XWiki Committers." and "Right now the definition of contribution level is not strictly defined"
I would be ok to go ahead without those 2 specified more closely but I'd be in favor of defining at least a loose metric or some indicators that would be publicly displayed somewhere so that anyone could come and see for himself, "this is where most commits come from". Some kind of public dashboard maybe, similar to the one we have at: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/ProjectHealth but updated in real time with the names of the committers& their number of commits - if that's doable of course.
WDYT?
For the second once I've defined some loose metrics already. Don't you agree with them? I could just remove "Right now the definition of contribution level is not strictly defined" if we agree.
LOC is never a good measure, since it leaves one of the biggest loopholes in tricking the measurement. Maybe HLOC (Honest LOC) :)
Yes I hate LOCs too.
# of Active committers is enough for me. WDYT?
+1.
For the first one, if we really want a definition (I'm not sure we need one and the pb with one is that it'll never be strictly enforced and would be too rigid IMO) there's the one I suggested, which is one commit every month but the pb with that kind of metric is that you could just do a code reformatting and be done with it. That's why I don't like strict metric in this case. Now you could say "significative commit" but then you need to define "significative". IMO it's very easy for a human to judge if someone is active or not and then the committers can decide together to remove someone from the list if they judge that the company is not participating anymore and doesn't deserve to be listed.
Well, we're (True) Open Source, we're Not Evil, let's trust the community.
Yep :)
Thanks -Vincent
So it would work like this: * a company has one committer active at some point, it's listed * after some time the company doesn't participate anymore * at some point someone in the community notices it and the committers decide what to do with its listing
In any case a governance isn't static. We'll refine it as we progress and anyone can propose variations to it. I feel that there's enough in there to get started.
WDYT?
Thanks -Vincent
Guillaume
Please review it and vote. The idea is then to move it to http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/Governance in a few days.
As usual, non committers don't have binding votes but are still very much encouraged to give their opinions. Their voice is especially more important on this topic since most committers are from XWiki SAS and thus I feel we need at least a general agreement from the community at large before doing anything.
-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
It's written down for all the world to see. +1 I say let's go with it and if issues arise we will deal with them. XWiki committers continue to monitor it to remove spam, fix problems, do gardening "gardening" :D Almost that time of year. Caleb Vincent Massol wrote:
On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'd like to move this topic forward. Thus I've now created a draft of the XWiki.org Governance that gathers what I had proposed at http://markmail.org/message/fxqvprtbb5vyog6g
The Governance page is currently at: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/Governance
Sounds good overall. As one could expect, the 2 gray areas to me are:
"The notion of active is currently left to the appreciation of the XWiki Committers." and "Right now the definition of contribution level is not strictly defined"
I would be ok to go ahead without those 2 specified more closely but I'd be in favor of defining at least a loose metric or some indicators that would be publicly displayed somewhere so that anyone could come and see for himself, "this is where most commits come from". Some kind of public dashboard maybe, similar to the one we have at: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/ProjectHealth but updated in real time with the names of the committers & their number of commits - if that's doable of course.
WDYT?
For the second once I've defined some loose metrics already. Don't you agree with them? I could just remove "Right now the definition of contribution level is not strictly defined" if we agree.
For the first one, if we really want a definition (I'm not sure we need one and the pb with one is that it'll never be strictly enforced and would be too rigid IMO) there's the one I suggested, which is one commit every month but the pb with that kind of metric is that you could just do a code reformatting and be done with it. That's why I don't like strict metric in this case. Now you could say "significative commit" but then you need to define "significative". IMO it's very easy for a human to judge if someone is active or not and then the committers can decide together to remove someone from the list if they judge that the company is not participating anymore and doesn't deserve to be listed.
So it would work like this: * a company has one committer active at some point, it's listed * after some time the company doesn't participate anymore * at some point someone in the community notices it and the committers decide what to do with its listing
In any case a governance isn't static. We'll refine it as we progress and anyone can propose variations to it. I feel that there's enough in there to get started.
WDYT?
Thanks -Vincent
Guillaume
Please review it and vote. The idea is then to move it to http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/Governance in a few days.
As usual, non committers don't have binding votes but are still very much encouraged to give their opinions. Their voice is especially more important on this topic since most committers are from XWiki SAS and thus I feel we need at least a general agreement from the community at large before doing anything.
Thanks a lot -Vincent
devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On 03/16/2010 10:51 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'd like to move this topic forward. Thus I've now created a draft of the XWiki.org Governance that gathers what I had proposed at http://markmail.org/message/fxqvprtbb5vyog6g
The Governance page is currently at: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/Governance
Sounds good overall. As one could expect, the 2 gray areas to me are:
"The notion of active is currently left to the appreciation of the XWiki Committers."
Well, it is a little bit more clear in the Committership page: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/Community/Committership : - becoming a committer once "enough" good patches are applied - becoming emeritus if a whole year passes without a commit
and "Right now the definition of contribution level is not strictly defined"
I would be ok to go ahead without those 2 specified more closely but I'd be in favor of defining at least a loose metric or some indicators that would be publicly displayed somewhere so that anyone could come and see for himself, "this is where most commits come from". Some kind of public dashboard maybe, similar to the one we have at: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/ProjectHealth but updated in real time with the names of the committers& their number of commits - if that's doable of course.
This would be really easy to do with JGit reading a Git clone of our SVN repo + charting macro.
WDYT?
Guillaume
Please review it and vote. The idea is then to move it to http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/Governance in a few days.
"or with a "Products" tab in some top level horizontal navigation" => I don't quite like it. How many products do we have? IMO, not many enough to require a top level entry. But I agree with the Download page. "we require that the company/individual have at least one active Committer" => How about companies that invest a lot of money in *our* developers, sponsoring important, major features, like the Office importer, or the social dashboard? Or is the Supporters page enough for them? "The notion of active is currently left to the appreciation of the XWiki Committers." => Why does a company have to be active continuously? I would like to see stated somewhere (not necessarily on this page) that most committers are from XWiki SAS not because XWiki SAS pushes its employees as committers, but the other way around, because XWiki SAS wants to sustain the best contributors by offering them a job, so it pulls employees from the committers (or promising contributors, future committers).
As usual, non committers don't have binding votes but are still very much encouraged to give their opinions. Their voice is especially more important on this topic since most committers are from XWiki SAS and thus I feel we need at least a general agreement from the community at large before doing anything.
-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
Hi Sergiu, On Mar 16, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 03/16/2010 10:51 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'd like to move this topic forward. Thus I've now created a draft of the XWiki.org Governance that gathers what I had proposed at http://markmail.org/message/fxqvprtbb5vyog6g
The Governance page is currently at: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/Governance
Sounds good overall. As one could expect, the 2 gray areas to me are:
"The notion of active is currently left to the appreciation of the XWiki Committers."
Well, it is a little bit more clear in the Committership page: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/Community/Committership : - becoming a committer once "enough" good patches are applied - becoming emeritus if a whole year passes without a commit
and "Right now the definition of contribution level is not strictly defined"
I would be ok to go ahead without those 2 specified more closely but I'd be in favor of defining at least a loose metric or some indicators that would be publicly displayed somewhere so that anyone could come and see for himself, "this is where most commits come from". Some kind of public dashboard maybe, similar to the one we have at: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/ProjectHealth but updated in real time with the names of the committers& their number of commits - if that's doable of course.
This would be really easy to do with JGit reading a Git clone of our SVN repo + charting macro.
WDYT?
Guillaume
Please review it and vote. The idea is then to move it to http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/Governance in a few days.
"or with a "Products" tab in some top level horizontal navigation" => I don't quite like it. How many products do we have? IMO, not many enough to require a top level entry. But I agree with the Download page.
We have only "Projects" and yes I think we want to be a forge. We have several projects: - XE - standalone rendering - standalone wysiwyg - XEclipse - XOO - XOffice - apps could also be considered projects (xwatch app, xem app, etc) - to be decided. Products would be commercial offerings only, a la JBoss. See http://jboss.org I'm also not sure we want this now but I wanted to leave the door open for the future. We could decide to remove it for now and rediscuss it later if the need arises.
"we require that the company/individual have at least one active Committer" => How about companies that invest a lot of money in *our* developers, sponsoring important, major features, like the Office importer, or the social dashboard? Or is the Supporters page enough for them?
I think so. Most of these companies are not selling services/packages on top of XWiki anyway so they couldn't go in that page.
"The notion of active is currently left to the appreciation of the XWiki Committers." => Why does a company have to be active continuously?
IMO for 2 reasons: 1) To show that it knows what it talks about and to ensure a good quality of knowledge? 2) To ensure that companies don't do a push to get a committer in to get listed and then that committer doesn't do any work thereafter But yes maybe the same rule as we have for committers is good enough (i.e. 1 year).
I would like to see stated somewhere (not necessarily on this page) that most committers are from XWiki SAS not because XWiki SAS pushes its employees as committers, but the other way around, because XWiki SAS wants to sustain the best contributors by offering them a job, so it pulls employees from the committers (or promising contributors, future committers).
I agree that on the Hall Of Fame page, we should have a column stating what company the person is from. Thanks -Vincent
As usual, non committers don't have binding votes but are still very much encouraged to give their opinions. Their voice is especially more important on this topic since most committers are from XWiki SAS and thus I feel we need at least a general agreement from the community at large before doing anything.
-- Sergiu Dumitriu
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:11, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> wrote:
On 03/16/2010 10:51 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'd like to move this topic forward. Thus I've now created a draft of the XWiki.org Governance that gathers what I had proposed at http://markmail.org/message/fxqvprtbb5vyog6g
The Governance page is currently at: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/Governance
Sounds good
Sounds good overall. As one could expect, the 2 gray areas to me are:
"The notion of active is currently left to the appreciation of the XWiki Committers."
Well, it is a little bit more clear in the Committership page: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/Community/Committership : - becoming a committer once "enough" good patches are applied - becoming emeritus if a whole year passes without a commit
+1 to reuse committers rules, it's the same thing for me.
and "Right now the definition of contribution level is not strictly defined"
I would be ok to go ahead without those 2 specified more closely but I'd be in favor of defining at least a loose metric or some indicators that would be publicly displayed somewhere so that anyone could come and see for himself, "this is where most commits come from". Some kind of public dashboard maybe, similar to the one we have at: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/ProjectHealth but updated in real time with the names of the committers& their number of commits - if that's doable of course.
This would be really easy to do with JGit reading a Git clone of our SVN repo + charting macro.
WDYT?
Guillaume
Please review it and vote. The idea is then to move it to http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/Governance in a few days.
"or with a "Products" tab in some top level horizontal navigation" => I don't quite like it. How many products do we have? IMO, not many enough to require a top level entry. But I agree with the Download page.
"we require that the company/individual have at least one active Committer" => How about companies that invest a lot of money in *our* developers, sponsoring important, major features, like the Office importer, or the social dashboard? Or is the Supporters page enough for them?
"The notion of active is currently left to the appreciation of the XWiki Committers." => Why does a company have to be active continuously?
I would like to see stated somewhere (not necessarily on this page) that most committers are from XWiki SAS not because XWiki SAS pushes its employees as committers, but the other way around, because XWiki SAS wants to sustain the best contributors by offering them a job, so it pulls employees from the committers (or promising contributors, future committers).
As usual, non committers don't have binding votes but are still very much encouraged to give their opinions. Their voice is especially more important on this topic since most committers are from XWiki SAS and thus I feel we need at least a general agreement from the community at large before doing anything.
-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Thomas Mortagne
ok I've now reworked the page based on the feedback received so far. Please recast your votes if they have changed. Thanks -Vincent On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'd like to move this topic forward. Thus I've now created a draft of the XWiki.org Governance that gathers what I had proposed at http://markmail.org/message/fxqvprtbb5vyog6g
The Governance page is currently at: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/Governance
Please review it and vote. The idea is then to move it to http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/Governance in a few days.
As usual, non committers don't have binding votes but are still very much encouraged to give their opinions. Their voice is especially more important on this topic since most committers are from XWiki SAS and thus I feel we need at least a general agreement from the community at large before doing anything.
Thanks a lot -Vincent
+1 Guillaume On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
ok I've now reworked the page based on the feedback received so far.
Please recast your votes if they have changed.
Thanks -Vincent
On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'd like to move this topic forward. Thus I've now created a draft of the XWiki.org Governance that gathers what I had proposed at http://markmail.org/message/fxqvprtbb5vyog6g
The Governance page is currently at: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/Governance
Please review it and vote. The idea is then to move it to http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/Governance in a few days.
As usual, non committers don't have binding votes but are still very much encouraged to give their opinions. Their voice is especially more important on this topic since most committers are from XWiki SAS and thus I feel we need at least a general agreement from the community at large before doing anything.
Thanks a lot -Vincent
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Guillaume Lerouge Product Manager - XWiki SAS Skype: wikibc Twitter: glerouge http://guillaumelerouge.com/
+1. JV. On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
ok I've now reworked the page based on the feedback received so far.
Please recast your votes if they have changed.
Thanks -Vincent
On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'd like to move this topic forward. Thus I've now created a draft of the XWiki.org Governance that gathers what I had proposed at http://markmail.org/message/fxqvprtbb5vyog6g
The Governance page is currently at: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/Governance
Please review it and vote. The idea is then to move it to http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/Governance in a few days.
As usual, non committers don't have binding votes but are still very much encouraged to give their opinions. Their voice is especially more important on this topic since most committers are from XWiki SAS and thus I feel we need at least a general agreement from the community at large before doing anything.
Thanks a lot -Vincent
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
+1 Thanks, Marius Vincent Massol wrote:
ok I've now reworked the page based on the feedback received so far.
Please recast your votes if they have changed.
Thanks -Vincent
On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'd like to move this topic forward. Thus I've now created a draft of the XWiki.org Governance that gathers what I had proposed at http://markmail.org/message/fxqvprtbb5vyog6g
The Governance page is currently at: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/Governance
Please review it and vote. The idea is then to move it to http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/Governance in a few days.
As usual, non committers don't have binding votes but are still very much encouraged to give their opinions. Their voice is especially more important on this topic since most committers are from XWiki SAS and thus I feel we need at least a general agreement from the community at large before doing anything.
Thanks a lot -Vincent
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
as a non committer, I agree with caleb: go on and let's manage incoming issues... seems ok Pascal On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea < [email protected]> wrote:
+1
Thanks, Marius
Vincent Massol wrote:
ok I've now reworked the page based on the feedback received so far.
Please recast your votes if they have changed.
Thanks -Vincent
On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'd like to move this topic forward. Thus I've now created a draft of the XWiki.org Governance that gathers what I had proposed at http://markmail.org/message/fxqvprtbb5vyog6g
The Governance page is currently at: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/Governance
Please review it and vote. The idea is then to move it to http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/Governance in a few days.
As usual, non committers don't have binding votes but are still very much encouraged to give their opinions. Their voice is especially more important on this topic since most committers are from XWiki SAS and thus I feel we need at least a general agreement from the community at large before doing anything.
Thanks a lot -Vincent
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'd like to move this topic forward. Thus I've now created a draft of the XWiki.org Governance that gathers what I had proposed at http://markmail.org/message/fxqvprtbb5vyog6g
The Governance page is currently at: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/Governance
Please review it and vote. The idea is then to move it to http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/Governance in a few days.
Here's my +1 :) -Vincent
As usual, non committers don't have binding votes but are still very much encouraged to give their opinions. Their voice is especially more important on this topic since most committers are from XWiki SAS and thus I feel we need at least a general agreement from the community at large before doing anything.
Thanks a lot -Vincent
Vote Result: +1: - Vincent - Jean-Vincent - Caleb - Guillaume - Marius - Pascal Seem to agree: - Sergiu - Thomas - Denis Thus the vote is passed. I'm moving the page to http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/Governance Thanks -Vincent On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'd like to move this topic forward. Thus I've now created a draft of the XWiki.org Governance that gathers what I had proposed at http://markmail.org/message/fxqvprtbb5vyog6g
The Governance page is currently at: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/Governance
Please review it and vote. The idea is then to move it to http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/Governance in a few days.
As usual, non committers don't have binding votes but are still very much encouraged to give their opinions. Their voice is especially more important on this topic since most committers are from XWiki SAS and thus I feel we need at least a general agreement from the community at large before doing anything.
Thanks a lot -Vincent
participants (8)
-
Caleb James DeLisle -
Guillaume Lerouge -
Jean-Vincent Drean -
Marius Dumitru Florea -
Pascal Voitot Dev -
Sergiu Dumitriu -
Thomas Mortagne -
Vincent Massol