On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 05:27:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Matthew Palmer wrote: > >>Is that what we're talking about here? It seems pretty reasonable to me, > >>once you get through all the wherefores and thithers... > >That is the gist of it. > > So can we get a concrete proposal to vote on? No ifs or buts, just a I thought what I posted to the linux-aus list before was sufficient. Can you identify which parts of that document needs to be tightened up before LA can decide on the matter? > who should be on the sub-ctte, and who the chair is? No need to be too > detailed, or too wordy, it just needs to be clear on what you want, and The only thing we haven't given any specification of is who should be the LA<->CC liaison. That's not a killer issue from my point of view, but we can have a discussion on the CC mailing list and give you an answer in the next couple of days. As far as who is going to be on the sub-committee, I want as many people on the mailing list to be there -- nobody, at present, has any more experience than anyone else about what we're doing. I think the definition of "Community Code Members" given in the proposal is appropriate for sub-committee membership. As far as meetings go, we can either meet online or at SLUG meetings for the near future. > Hrm, I imagine there'll be a BOF/lightning-talk on this at LCA too... > *hinthint* :) Hadn't really considered it. I'm not sure what we'd have to talk about. We're past the "is this a good idea" stage, but don't have any major issues of operational importance to discuss yet. - Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature