Releasing 4 months from selection of RM

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Releasing 4 months from selection of RM

James Crook
I've just read 11 emails from Vaughan about RM.

Without them we would be well on the way to Paul being RM, and instead
of faffing around with process, actually making decisions.

I don't have time to engage in a back and forth with Vaughan about RM/DM
(unless he raises having a DM as a VOTE) so instead am raising a VOTE
specifically about Paul and RMing this release.

Hopefully this will keep the inbox-torrent within reason.

--James.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Releasing 4 months from selection of RM

James Crook
Please ignore this message.

On 4/11/2017 10:20 AM, James Crook wrote:

> I've just read 11 emails from Vaughan about RM.
>
> Without them we would be well on the way to Paul being RM, and instead
> of faffing around with process, actually making decisions.
>
> I don't have time to engage in a back and forth with Vaughan about RM/DM
> (unless he raises having a DM as a VOTE) so instead am raising a VOTE
> specifically about Paul and RMing this release.
>
> Hopefully this will keep the inbox-torrent within reason.
>
> --James.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> audacity-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
>
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Releasing 4 months from selection of RM

Vaughan Johnson-4
In reply to this post by James Crook
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:20 AM, James Crook <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I've just read 11 emails from Vaughan about RM.

Yeah, I'm not going to count yours, but they must be of similar
number. And I wasn't the only one on that thread. Blame game.
Unnecessary drama.


>
> Without them we would be well on the way to Paul being RM, and instead
> of faffing around with process, actually making decisions.

Being RM without our having agreed what that is. Or what decisions are
impeding progress in dev phase.

You still haven't answered my statements that we did fine for years
with RM powers only during Release Process. Specifics. Lib updates
have not been an issue. i wouldn't keep asking if you'd answer, rather
than just repeating that we need an RM RIGHT NOW.


>
> I don't have time to engage in a back and forth with Vaughan about RM/DM
> (unless he raises having a DM as a VOTE) so instead am raising a VOTE
> specifically about Paul and RMing this release.

I'm surprised you're so worked up about this. Just my suggestion that
we might have a discussion whether we want to extend powers and
duration of RM -- we have NOT explicitly agreed on that. You needn't
obsess about "DM".  I just care what the role is, not the title.

Your being so irritated by it contradicts your and Gale having
invented "QM" whole cloth with no agreement among team@. At least I
brought it up for discussion rather than just invent a new title team@
did not agreed to.

I already said I'm +1 for Paul, and I'm grateful for him volunteering.
Just don't see why we need an RM all the time. And btw, as I said,
we've only ever had one volunteer at a time to do it, and now, so we
don't need to nominate or vote.

Hey, guess what James, I'm sick of this conversation, too, because you
keep refusing to answer my questions and concerns, BUT...

With all the participation in the nomination discussion, I guess the
people who were concerned about this increased power/duration of RM no
longer are .

SO I CONCEDE. Majority apparently now agrees RM is from one release
until the next. OK. Hey, let's put it in the bylaws so there's no
confusion with the traditional scope.

- Vaughan

>
> Hopefully this will keep the inbox-torrent within reason.
>
> --James.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> audacity-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Releasing 4 months from selection of RM

Stevethefiddle
On 11 April 2017 at 21:03, Vaughan Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:20 AM, James Crook <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I've just read 11 emails from Vaughan about RM.
>
> Yeah, I'm not going to count yours, but they must be of similar
> number. And I wasn't the only one on that thread. Blame game.
> Unnecessary drama.
>
>
>>
>> Without them we would be well on the way to Paul being RM, and instead
>> of faffing around with process, actually making decisions.
>
> Being RM without our having agreed what that is. Or what decisions are
> impeding progress in dev phase.
>
> You still haven't answered my statements that we did fine for years
> with RM powers only during Release Process. Specifics. Lib updates
> have not been an issue. i wouldn't keep asking if you'd answer, rather
> than just repeating that we need an RM RIGHT NOW.
>
>
>>
>> I don't have time to engage in a back and forth with Vaughan about RM/DM
>> (unless he raises having a DM as a VOTE) so instead am raising a VOTE
>> specifically about Paul and RMing this release.
>
> I'm surprised you're so worked up about this. Just my suggestion that
> we might have a discussion whether we want to extend powers and
> duration of RM -- we have NOT explicitly agreed on that. You needn't
> obsess about "DM".  I just care what the role is, not the title.
>
> Your being so irritated by it contradicts your and Gale having
> invented "QM" whole cloth with no agreement among team@. At least I
> brought it up for discussion rather than just invent a new title team@
> did not agreed to.
>
> I already said I'm +1 for Paul, and I'm grateful for him volunteering.
> Just don't see why we need an RM all the time. And btw, as I said,
> we've only ever had one volunteer at a time to do it, and now, so we
> don't need to nominate or vote.
>
> Hey, guess what James, I'm sick of this conversation, too, because you
> keep refusing to answer my questions and concerns, BUT...
>
> With all the participation in the nomination discussion, I guess the
> people who were concerned about this increased power/duration of RM no
> longer are .
>
> SO I CONCEDE. Majority apparently now agrees RM is from one release
> until the next.

I don't see how that follows, and I don't think it's the case.

Steve


> OK. Hey, let's put it in the bylaws so there's no
> confusion with the traditional scope.
>
> - Vaughan
>
>>
>> Hopefully this will keep the inbox-torrent within reason.
>>
>> --James.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> audacity-devel mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> audacity-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Releasing 4 months from selection of RM

Peter Sampson-2


On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:10 AM, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 11 April 2017 at 21:03, Vaughan Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:20 AM, James Crook <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I've just read 11 emails from Vaughan about RM.
>
> Yeah, I'm not going to count yours, but they must be of similar
> number. And I wasn't the only one on that thread. Blame game.
> Unnecessary drama.
>
>
>>
>> Without them we would be well on the way to Paul being RM, and instead
>> of faffing around with process, actually making decisions.
>
> Being RM without our having agreed what that is. Or what decisions are
> impeding progress in dev phase.
>
> You still haven't answered my statements that we did fine for years
> with RM powers only during Release Process. Specifics. Lib updates
> have not been an issue. i wouldn't keep asking if you'd answer, rather
> than just repeating that we need an RM RIGHT NOW.
>
>
>>
>> I don't have time to engage in a back and forth with Vaughan about RM/DM
>> (unless he raises having a DM as a VOTE) so instead am raising a VOTE
>> specifically about Paul and RMing this release.
>
> I'm surprised you're so worked up about this. Just my suggestion that
> we might have a discussion whether we want to extend powers and
> duration of RM -- we have NOT explicitly agreed on that. You needn't
> obsess about "DM".  I just care what the role is, not the title.
>
> Your being so irritated by it contradicts your and Gale having
> invented "QM" whole cloth with no agreement among team@. At least I
> brought it up for discussion rather than just invent a new title team@
> did not agreed to.
>
> I already said I'm +1 for Paul, and I'm grateful for him volunteering.
> Just don't see why we need an RM all the time. And btw, as I said,
> we've only ever had one volunteer at a time to do it, and now, so we
> don't need to nominate or vote.
>
> Hey, guess what James, I'm sick of this conversation, too, because you
> keep refusing to answer my questions and concerns, BUT...
>
> With all the participation in the nomination discussion, I guess the
> people who were concerned about this increased power/duration of RM no
> longer are .
>
> SO I CONCEDE. Majority apparently now agrees RM is from one release
> until the next.

I don't see how that follows, and I don't think it's the case.

I don't think it's the case either.

Peter
 

Steve


> OK. Hey, let's put it in the bylaws so there's no
> confusion with the traditional scope.
>
> - Vaughan
>
>>
>> Hopefully this will keep the inbox-torrent within reason.
>>
>> --James.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> audacity-devel mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> audacity-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Releasing 4 months from selection of RM

MartynShaw


On 12 April 2017 at 08:06, Peter Sampson <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:10 AM, Steve the Fiddle <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 11 April 2017 at 21:03, Vaughan Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:20 AM, James Crook <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I've just read 11 emails from Vaughan about RM.
>
> Yeah, I'm not going to count yours, but they must be of similar
> number. And I wasn't the only one on that thread. Blame game.
> Unnecessary drama.
>
>
>>
>> Without them we would be well on the way to Paul being RM, and instead
>> of faffing around with process, actually making decisions.
>
> Being RM without our having agreed what that is. Or what decisions are
> impeding progress in dev phase.
>
> You still haven't answered my statements that we did fine for years
> with RM powers only during Release Process. Specifics. Lib updates
> have not been an issue. i wouldn't keep asking if you'd answer, rather
> than just repeating that we need an RM RIGHT NOW.
>
>
>>
>> I don't have time to engage in a back and forth with Vaughan about RM/DM
>> (unless he raises having a DM as a VOTE) so instead am raising a VOTE
>> specifically about Paul and RMing this release.
>
> I'm surprised you're so worked up about this. Just my suggestion that
> we might have a discussion whether we want to extend powers and
> duration of RM -- we have NOT explicitly agreed on that. You needn't
> obsess about "DM".  I just care what the role is, not the title.
>
> Your being so irritated by it contradicts your and Gale having
> invented "QM" whole cloth with no agreement among team@. At least I
> brought it up for discussion rather than just invent a new title team@
> did not agreed to.
>
> I already said I'm +1 for Paul, and I'm grateful for him volunteering.
> Just don't see why we need an RM all the time. And btw, as I said,
> we've only ever had one volunteer at a time to do it, and now, so we
> don't need to nominate or vote.
>
> Hey, guess what James, I'm sick of this conversation, too, because you
> keep refusing to answer my questions and concerns, BUT...
>
> With all the participation in the nomination discussion, I guess the
> people who were concerned about this increased power/duration of RM no
> longer are .
>
> SO I CONCEDE. Majority apparently now agrees RM is from one release
> until the next.

I don't see how that follows, and I don't think it's the case.

I don't think it's the case either.

Not as I understood it either.

Martyn 


Peter
 

Steve


> OK. Hey, let's put it in the bylaws so there's no
> confusion with the traditional scope.
>
> - Vaughan
>
>>
>> Hopefully this will keep the inbox-torrent within reason.
>>
>> --James.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> audacity-devel mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> audacity-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Loading...