From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sanddollar.geekisp.com ([216.168.135.167]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RqBId-0000hf-D9 for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:26:39 +0100 Received: (qmail 23651 invoked by uid 1003); 25 Jan 2012 22:12:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.104?) (philip@opensdr.com@96.240.160.175) by mail.geekisp.com with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 25 Jan 2012 22:12:06 -0000 Message-ID: <4F207E35.3030908@balister.org> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:12:05 -0500 From: Philip Balister User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111108 Fedora/3.1.16-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Phil Blundell References: <1592899.mTy93uB97i@helios> <1908796.glHMrEiIxU@helios> <4F202735.8040405@balister.org> <3543079.3rgjSx9VfG@helios> <1327514250.29933.37.camel@phil-desktop> <4F2069CC.7060409@balister.org> <1327525435.2716.37.camel@x121e.pbcl.net> In-Reply-To: <1327525435.2716.37.camel@x121e.pbcl.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Cc: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: Splitting meta-oe X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:26:40 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 01/25/2012 04:03 PM, Phil Blundell wrote: > On Wed, 2012-01-25 at 15:45 -0500, Philip Balister wrote: >> On 01/25/2012 12:57 PM, Phil Blundell wrote: >>> Agreed. I think the mailing lists ought to remain the primary forum for >>> decision-making. If there's something that needs to be discussed, let's >>> do it here. If we can't reach a consensus, that's what we have the TSC >>> for. >> >> I do not want this to discourage from OE developers talking about things >> like this when they have the chance. Sometimes, high bandwidth face to >> face conversations can resolve issues much faster. > > Absolutely, folks should feel welcome to discuss this and any other > issues whenever they have the chance. And if no conclusion has emerged > by the time ELC comes around then that might indeed be a useful way to > move things forward. But, such face-to-face meetings inevitably involve > only a subset of developers and the only way to ensure that all > interested parties are able to participate is to hold discussion on the > mailing list whenever possible. Sure. I don't think anyone is suggesting that a few guys get together and make binding decisions, just try to work through things a little faster. Philip