Board efforts: scope, concept, and permission?
poelstra at redhat.com
Wed Feb 3 16:26:30 UTC 2010
Adam Miller said the following on 02/03/2010 08:02 AM Pacific Time:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:36 AM, John Poelstra<poelstra at redhat.com> wrote:
>> These are *working drafts and in process documents* all the in spirit of
>> transparency. It would be more helpful to these discussions to get
>> clarification on advisory-board first rather than conclude that the
>> board has run off the rails by using words like "letting" and "allowing"
>> in documents that are brainstorming and unfinished.
>> I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that we've posted all meeting
>> recaps to advisory-board list and there has been ZERO discussion or
>> inquiries there. We specifically asked for feedback to the original
>> list of "unanswered questions" on advisory-board. Is there a particular
>> reason you did not respond there?
>> I feel like you are discounting the board's efforts and misdirecting a
>> lot energy by launching a new thread here with your "concerns" before
>> first getting clarification on advisory-board.
> I'm not on some crusade to undermine the Board if that's what you
> think, I'm honestly looking for clarification but not only from those
> involved in the Board but the community as well and both are located
> here on this list. I don't see why it matters where the questions are
> asked, just so long as they are asked.
Thanks for your clarification. I think it is great to ask questions, I
ask a lot of them myself. I question how productive it is to all of us
though, to ask questions if the starting point of those questions is
My sense here was that a few words on a wiki page struck you the wrong
way so instead of going to the people that wrote them by asking, "Hey,
what do you guys mean? These _______ things concern me for these
reasons." It was first asked instead to a mailing list that didn't
write them :).
I specifically requested feedback on advisory-board for this very
purpose and received no responses. Is there something I could have done
better on advisory-board list to engage the people that have
participated so freely here?
> As far as replying to the advisory-board mailing list first, I will be
> sure to do so in the future. I apparently forgot my place in the
> hierarchy for a moment. Apologies for not following protocol.
I didn't mean to imply that you'd broken any rules. I thought we might
be able to have a more productive discussion if we had an accurate
More information about the devel