[sakai2-tcc] [cle-kernel-team] [cle-release-team] retiring the kernel team

[Aaron Zeckoski]

Agree that we do not need a separate list.
If you need smaller distribution than dev then there is always the cle
team or TCC lists.
-AZ


On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Charles Severance <csev at umich.edu> wrote:
> I am for retiring the concept of the kernel team as a "structural entity"
> with rules and procedures.  It should be run like any other group of
> committers (i.e. like portal).   The kernel committer group can decide how
> to work (i.e. meetings, etc... or just email ... )
>
> It is OK to have/keep an kernel email list if folks want it.   If we have a
> kernel email list it should be like the TCC list (i.e. anyone can join and
> anyone can post).  I doubt the kernel committers need a private lst - for
> the portal when we want to talk about a new committer - simply mailing the
> other existing committers directly is enough.   No need for a private list
> for 2 messages per year.
>
> /Chuck
>
> On Jun 19, 2012, at 8:28 AM, Seth Theriault wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Berg, Alan <A.M.Berg at uva.nl> wrote:
>
> Yes resources are scarce and so keep to message.
>
>
> The Git v. Subversion can because it's simply distracting. Let's focus
> on getting a reasonable code review + committers for Kernel and see
> how that goes (that's essentially what is happening anyway). I am +1
> on waiting to get 2.9 out the door.
>
> Seth
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sakai2-tcc mailing list
> sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org
> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc
>



-- 
Aaron Zeckoski - Software Architect - http://tinyurl.com/azprofile