| Re: [wtp-releng] CBI build planning meeting |
|
Mickael, As a casual observer from the outside, your message seems to make some unfair assumptions about the project's operation. I may, however, be misinterpreting; but here is how I see it. Just for curiosity: who are "the main people involved in planning this effort"? Is this set of people open? If yes, I'd be glad to be listed at one of them and help where I can. To me, the list of people involved is quite clear: all the active participants on this mailing list, as seen from the archives: http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/wtp-releng/index.php Although I don't think it's a big deal if I miss this specific meeting, I believe it would make sense for the future to plan it in an open manner via a doodle or something to be more welcoming to new contributors which are not working in US.The team has been holding meetings for years. Why must you assume that the time chosen wasn't conducted in an open manner? Where were you back in 2005? :-) Using this mailing list to determine the time is as open as it can get. If the only persons to voice an opinion at the time were in North America, it's a perfectly valid time. To request a new time be chosen is entirely valid. However, there is not a single time slot that will accommodate everyone around the globe. 11:00am Eastern time is good for east-code North America, fine for most of Europe, but a bit early for Western North America and much too late for most of Asia. After the meeting, please share meeting minutes with links to all related bugs so people who couldn't attend can know what was discussed and continue the meeting via emails or bugzillas.Why must you assume that the project is not doing this? A single Google Search has led me to this: http://wiki.eclipse.org/WTP_Development_Status_Meetings That page has led me to this page: http://wiki.eclipse.org/WTP_2014-01-02 Which contains everything you're asking. It appears you are preaching to the choir, and while everyone appreciates potential contributors, I think contributors should be expected to do some minimal research to be accepted on a team. I don't think you have done that, yet instead invested time to author a post that seems to point the finger and utter "you should"s to a project that, IMO, is doing everything right. I apologize if I've misunderstood your post. Denis |