On 22 October 2015 at 11:29, Tony Stevenson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2015, at 11:17 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>> The LDAP group is used for granting karma, not for determining PMC
>> membership.
>
> That is simply not necessarily true Sebb.
What is not true?
The LDAP committee group is definitely used f
On 21 October 2015 at 17:54, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:29 PM, sebb wrote:
>> On 21 October 2015 at 13:27, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Mike Kienenberger
>>> wrote:
Rich already made it clear what would be the best improvement and gave
a spec
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015, at 11:17 AM, sebb wrote:
> The LDAP group is used for granting karma, not for determining PMC
> membership.
That is simply not necessarily true Sebb. There are two LDAP groups per
TLP/PMC. ou=groups,cn=httpd and ou=pmc,ou=groups,cn=httpd - there
are even groups that do
On 21 October 2015 at 18:21, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
>
> On 10/20/2015 06:22 PM, sebb wrote:
>>>
>>> >My change was because the phrasing of the reports is confusing. The
>>> >'committee group' phrasing trips me up every single time. The
>>> > information in
>>
>> What else should it be called?
>> It's
Yay to that!
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 21, 2015, at 5:27, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> I'm working slowly on making the roster tool read/write so that it can
> be used instead of the Perl scripts and editing committee-info.txt
> directly. The idea is that adding an existing committer to the PMC
> s
On 10/20/2015 06:22 PM, sebb wrote:
>My change was because the phrasing of the reports is confusing. The
>'committee group' phrasing trips me up every single time. The information in
What else should it be called?
It's not the same as the PMC.
Sure, it is. If it's not, then something is bro
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:29 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 21 October 2015 at 13:27, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Mike Kienenberger
>> wrote:
>>> Rich already made it clear what would be the best improvement and gave
>>> a specific example, but I'll put it in generic terms.
>>>
>
I hadn't realized that the template section was different from the top
part. Sorry for not scrolling down.
Current:
==
## PMC changes (from committee-info.txt):
- Currently 40 PMC members.
- No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
- Last PMC addition was Paul Nic
On 21 October 2015 at 12:52, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
> Rich already made it clear what would be the best improvement and gave
> a specific example, but I'll put it in generic terms.
>
> Show the current count of the PMC members and committers.
> Show the last PMC addition and date.
> Show the las
On 21 October 2015 at 13:27, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
>> Rich already made it clear what would be the best improvement and gave
>> a specific example, but I'll put it in generic terms.
>>
>> Show the current count of the PMC members and committer
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
> Rich already made it clear what would be the best improvement and gave
> a specific example, but I'll put it in generic terms.
>
> Show the current count of the PMC members and committers.
> Show the last PMC addition and date.
> Show the
Rich already made it clear what would be the best improvement and gave
a specific example, but I'll put it in generic terms.
Show the current count of the PMC members and committers.
Show the last PMC addition and date.
Show the last committer addition and date.
That's also all I'm looking for as
On 20 October 2015 at 21:23, Rich Bowen wrote:
> Somehow, I haven't received any of the messages in this conversation after
> my first one. Not sure what happened there ...
>
> My change was because the phrasing of the reports is confusing. The
> 'committee group' phrasing trips me up every single
Somehow, I haven't received any of the messages in this conversation
after my first one. Not sure what happened there ...
My change was because the phrasing of the reports is confusing. The
'committee group' phrasing trips me up every single time. The
information in there is useful, but it's d
On 19 October 2015 at 17:37, sebb wrote:
> On 19 October 2015 at 16:19, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:12 AM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 19 October 2015 at 12:55, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:42 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 19 October 2015 at 06:58, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
>
On 19 October 2015 at 16:19, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:12 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 19 October 2015 at 12:55, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:42 AM, sebb wrote:
On 19 October 2015 at 06:58, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> ok, if you stay only on PMC composition inf
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:12 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 19 October 2015 at 12:55, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:42 AM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 19 October 2015 at 06:58, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
ok, if you stay only on PMC composition information, please just remove the
LDAP part: thi
On 19 October 2015 at 12:55, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:42 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 19 October 2015 at 06:58, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
>>> ok, if you stay only on PMC composition information, please just remove the
>>> LDAP part: this only adds confusion
>>
>> That's not what I am sugg
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:42 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 19 October 2015 at 06:58, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
>> ok, if you stay only on PMC composition information, please just remove the
>> LDAP part: this only adds confusion
>
> That's not what I am suggesting.
>
>> adding another section is useful if it's
On 19 October 2015 at 06:58, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> ok, if you stay only on PMC composition information, please just remove the
> LDAP part: this only adds confusion
That's not what I am suggesting.
> adding another section is useful if it's about another information: I thought
> information abo
ok, if you stay only on PMC composition information, please just remove the
LDAP part: this only adds confusion
adding another section is useful if it's about another information: I thought
information about count of committers was useful (even if not always easy to
know which are the few TLPs
On 19 October 2015 at 00:44, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
>> -- cut here --
>> ## PMC changes:
>>
>> - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>> - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>> - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>
>> ## LDAP unix
> -- cut here --
> ## PMC changes:
>
> - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
> - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
> - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>
> ## LDAP unix group changes:
>
> - Currently 44 members
> - Radu Ma
The app currently says for OODT:
-- cut here --
## PMC changes:
- Currently 42 PMC members.
- No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
- Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
- Currently 44 committers and 43 PMC members.
- Radu Manole was added to the
On 18 October 2015 at 09:31, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> from my understanding:
> - PMC composition is available in 2 forms: committee-info.txt (= golden
> source) and LDAP xxx-pmc group
The *only* record of current PMC membership is committee-info.txt.
The LDAP committee group (modify_committee.pl)
from my understanding:
- PMC composition is available in 2 forms: committee-info.txt (= golden
source) and LDAP xxx-pmc group
- committers list is available only in LDAP as xxx group
then instead of displaying:
* PMC from committee-info
* LDAP info: PMC + committers
it would be easier to unders
On 16 October 2015 at 21:08, Pierre Smits wrote:
> I feel confident that anybody objects to ambiguous information, and that no
> one will object to improvement.
I do object to conflating LDAP committee and PMC membership.
The two are completely distinct (although related).
This is why I changed
I feel confident that anybody objects to ambiguous information, and that no
one will object to improvement.
Best regards,
Pierre Smits
*OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> Although I acknowledge that the LDAP members
Although I acknowledge that the LDAP membership and the project
membership might be different in certain weird edge cases, for the
purpose of actually generating a board report, I find the current
formatting confuses me Every Single Time.
Viz:
## PMC changes:
- Currently 10 PMC members.
-
29 matches
Mail list logo
