Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2017
On 02/15/2017 01:19 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 15 February 2017 at 22:32, Sawyer X <xsawyerx@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think meetings don't have to be an >> automated schedule thing but can be based solely on "Is there something >> important to discuss". But having them is a very good idea. > My reasons for this idea stem more or less from your next comment and > how it plays out with the reality of being slightly more anarchic in > toolchain. > > Basically, /because/ there is no central authority, some sort of > broadcast system to give interested parties fair warning that > "important discussion detailing X will happen, everyone who cares is > encouraged to be there" > > Instead of relying on them being omnipresent and detecting it by > accident. ( Such notices could be spread to quite a few networks on > existing .MLs and pull in outsiders who aren't usually idling in > #toolchain ) > > But I won't force the idea, it just seems like something I'd expect to > happen already due to the size we are. My perspective on this is Whatever Works. You're in a better position than I to determine what works. :) > >> I would like to raise one more issue that Todd and myself have observed >> and discussed: Toolchain lacks a person who is the one to contact when >> something comes up. If an issue is raised, who's on point? Who leads the >> effort? The reporter? The "lucky" person on IRC who read it first? The >> first to reply? The person with the commit bit? The person with the >> PAUSE rights? Who decides this? I would be happy if there was one (or >> even more than one) direct person to contact and lead (or delegate >> leading) an action plan to resolve a given issue. Todd's experience >> seemed (both from the outside, and from the lists, and from the tickets, >> and from IRC) to be running around a bit trying to figure out who says >> "Yes" or "No" on something. >> >> I would be happy if this is one thing toolchain changes as well, to make >> it easier for us all to coordinate efforts. > [...] > > We should probably re-hash this stuff as a new P5P thread though. I agree.Thread Previous | Thread Next