Le mardi 21 novembre 2017 22:10:24 UTC+1, Gregorio Guidi a écrit :
On 11/21/2017 03:08 PM, suke...@gmail.com wrote:
> ***
>
> @all:
> Now about submissions to update the CLL... Let's imagine a second we
> have an unique and active board (say "LLGBPFKCoders", or whatever),
> and adequate tools. What would be an efficient submission protocol?
> Here are two drafts:
>
> [...]
>
> That's even simpler, but removes the ability to make tiny changes once
> validated. What's your opinion?
>
The community should be able to send pull requests with proposed changes
to the CLL. The LLG, as owner of the CLL, should appoint a recognized
member of the community as release manager in charge of the official
repository, with the power to accept/reject patches, set a roadmap and
make releases (CLL 1.2, 1.3, 2.0, ...).
Just my 2 cents.
mi'e la .greg.
What I feel interesting is centralizing stuff within the LLG, which is the logical (historical?) choice I guess. And the "release manager" is something surely interesting too.
But I fear this proposal would turn into another dead-end. We may end with someone inactive, or which blocks anything, as currently.
I'm thinking about giving more decisions to the community, but as Gleki pointed out, most may just be unable to make a choice. I will integrate your ideas in my text proposal.
Thanks.