Sign in to reply to author
Sign in to forward
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to CommonJS
Inspired by Hannes' "case for a dedicated I/O spec", I suggest that we
adopt a "jfdi" approach regarding updating the CommonJS/ServerJS spec
with proposals.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/ServerJS/ProposalProcess
Please weigh in with your opinions. In my view, "process" is sort of
a necessary evil in a group like this, but it's in all our interests
to facilitate things so that we can make good decisions with a minimum
of overhead, and easily track/record the state of the various things
we do in our respective projects.
--i
Sign in to reply to author
Sign in to forward
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to comm...@googlegroups.com
+1
JFDI: My new favorite acronym.--
---------------------------------------------
Mark Porter
Myna JavaScript Application Server
Easy server-side JS on a Java platform
Sign in to reply to author
Sign in to forward
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to comm...@googlegroups.com
This is essentially the process we've been using.
+1
There was an early discussion about how voting or hand showing works.
Kevin was elected BDFL by the early quorum. I believe that it was
agreed that his responsibility was to break fights up more than
anything else.
I also think that State 2, "Discussion", is more nuanced. If no
discussion occurs and there's only one implementation, I don't think
an idea can graduate to state 4. Such ideas should wait for the
community to catch up. This will help us keep from developing
standards that nobody wants, and encourages us to at least speak up in
the affirmative if there's a good idea. Silence is not consent.
Kris Kowal
Sign in to reply to author
Sign in to forward
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to CommonJS
That's the idea ^_^
> I also think that State 2, "Discussion", is more nuanced.
Agreed. Updated to make this explicit. Ironically, that's probably
the bit that needs the least explaining for new members, since it
happens out in the open.
Kevin as BDFL is perfectly fine imo. Our hand-showing seems to be
pretty smooth and easy for newcomers to pick up. However, with the
CommonJS list, and the wiki on
mozilla.org, and IRC channel, and the
various lists for individual projects, it's not always clear how to
propose a new idea. Maybe others feel differently, but editing a wiki
kind of feels like you need permission.
--i
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4