|Re: [tools-pmc] required discussion/agreement for "works with" classification of third party dependency|
Anthony Hunter mailto:anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx
Software Development Manager
IBM Rational Software: Aurora / Modeling Tools
Jeff McAffer ---09/08/2010 12:09:42 PM---Sorry I missed that post. This seems fine to me as a workswith. +1 Jeff
From: Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: John Duimovich/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, Anthony Hunter/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>, David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 09/08/2010 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: required discussion/agreement for "works with" classification of third party dependency
Sorry I missed that post. This seems fine to me as a workswith. +1
On 2010-09-08, at 11:19 AM, David M Williams wrote:
Can you please respond to my post on tools-pmc list?
It is _required_, as mentioned in the CQ
that we discuss and decide one way or another (or, I guess, the default is if there is no discussion, then there is no decision, which is the same as saying "no, they can not do it").
If that is your view or intent, then would be best for you to say so explicitly. But doesn't seem that radical or controversial to me ... so if you agree a simple +1 would suffice, I'd think. If you disagree, that's fine too, but with silence none of us know.
tools-pmc mailing list
Back to the top