FDO PSC Meeting 10-30-2006 - Revision history

Wiki-Vehrka: Reverted edits by PhoenixAllen (Talk) to last revision by Robertbray

2011-05-11T09:42:54Z

Reverted edits by PhoenixAllen (Talk) to last revision by Robertbray

Wiki-PhoenixAllen at 09:08, 11 May 2011

2011-05-11T09:08:01Z

Wiki-Robertbray at 06:35, 31 October 2006

2006-10-31T06:35:14Z

Wiki-Robertbray at 06:34, 31 October 2006

2006-10-31T06:34:13Z

Wiki-Robertbray at 06:31, 31 October 2006

2006-10-31T06:31:17Z

Wiki-Robertbray at 06:29, 31 October 2006

2006-10-31T06:29:42Z

Wiki-Robertbray: /* Minutes */

2006-10-31T06:25:23Z

Minutes

Wiki-Robertbray at 06:16, 31 October 2006

2006-10-31T06:16:44Z

Wiki-Robertbray: /* IRC Log */

2006-10-30T17:28:31Z

IRC Log

Wiki-Robertbray at 17:27, 30 October 2006

2006-10-30T17:27:51Z

Show changes

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 * Update the PSC Guidelines and motion to approve via e-mail.
 * Create a task list on the WIKI.
 === IRC Log ===

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 * Update the PSC Guidelines and motion to approve via e-mail.
 * Create a task list on the WIKI.
 === IRC Log ===

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 == Minutes ==
-Attendees: Bob, Greg, Orest, Mateusz, Frank, Howard
+PSC Members Present: Bob, Greg, Orest, Mateusz, Frank
 * PSC Guidelines Discussion

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 == Minutes ==
 * PSC Guidelines Discussion
 ** Change to clarify that significant decisions are to happen via e-mail while minor ad-hoc decisions may happen via IRC.
-** Change IRC veto to 48 hours after minutes posted and e-mail sent.
+** Change IRC veto to 48 hours after the minutes are posted and e-mail notification sent to account for time zones.
 ** Clarify what happens after an e-mail veto.
 ** Broaden Process item 11 to give the chair authority to extend voting periods, etc.

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 ** Clarify what happens after an e-mail veto.
 ** Broaden Process item 11 to give the chair authority to extend voting periods, etc.
-* Some discussion of RFCs to be continued next meeting.
+* Open discussion around RFCs to be continued next meeting. Statement that all FDO feature development both internal and external will be RFC driven.
 * Open disucssion of branch strategies, with a general consensus that we should branch as "late as possible".
 * Deemed a need for a documented development process, including the branch strategy.

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:16, 31 October 2006
Line 19:		Line 19:

	== Minutes ==		== Minutes ==
		+
		+	* PSC Guidelines Discussion
		+	** Change to clarify that significant decisions are to happen via e-mail while minor ad-hoc decisions may happen via IRC.

	=== IRC Log ===		=== IRC Log ===

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
   orest	OK. The doc says email votes need at least two working days and preferably one week.
   orest	Maybe veto against an IRC vote also should be at least two working days?
--->|	RobertF (n=RobertF@12.160.193.229) has joined #fdo
+ -->|	RobertF (n=RobertF@12.160.193.229) has joined #fdo
   rbray	Yes that is correct. Sure we can make it 48 hours. What does everyone else think?
   Greg_Boone	Sure
@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
   rbray	Everyone else in that PSC is in North America.
   mloskot	Right.
--->|	hobu (n=hobu@epimetheus.hobu.net) has joined #fdo
+ -->|	hobu (n=hobu@epimetheus.hobu.net) has joined #fdo
   rbray	So I'll make that change as well. Any other comments on the PSC document?
--->|	FrankW (n=nchatzil@ip-209-172-33-142.reverse.privatedns.com) has joined #fdo
+ -->|	FrankW (n=nchatzil@ip-209-172-33-142.reverse.privatedns.com) has joined #fdo
   FrankW	arrives very sheepishly.
   rbray	Hi FrankW.
@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
   rbray	We also clarified your e-mail, re: major decisions should happen via e-mail, and only ad-hoc decisions on IRC.
   FrankW	ok
-<--|	RobertF has left #fdo
+ <--|	RobertF has left #fdo
   rbray	So back to my question, any other comments on the PSC guidelines?
   mloskot	May be it's worth to say a word about what happen if one of us will send his veto
@@ Line 92: / Line 92: @@
   Greg_Boone	We had a number of changes for 3.2 that did not use the RFC process. We continue to make such changes in our 3.2 branch. Does moving them to the trunk require an RFC?
   rbray	Yes I think it would be good to start using RFCs immediately. Even for some things already in 3.2.
--->|	danmo (n=dmorisse@QUBCPQ14-1177866169.sdsl.bell.ca) has joined #fdo
+ -->|	danmo (n=dmorisse@QUBCPQ14-1177866169.sdsl.bell.ca) has joined #fdo
   Greg_Boone	Does adding changes to a branch require an RFC?
   rbray	Adding a feature or API change requires an RFC. The RFC should declare where it is going branch, trunk, etc.