<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Jakob Schwendner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jakob.schwendner@dfki.de" target="_blank">jakob.schwendner@dfki.de</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Sylvain,<br>
<br>
in principle ok. I am not sure on the wording of the "owners" team. Maybe management?<br></blockquote><div>"Owners" is a default team in Github with all admin rights on an organization ... Unfortunate name, but I would really not create a second team with the same role.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
This pulls up the question on the management of rock as a whole, not just repo rights (but I guess its somehow mirrored).<br></blockquote><div>Obviously. Now, I would do it "the open source way" and let those who code speak for themselves, at least for now. This is why I personally want to favor pull requests and the MLs for discussion *before* code gets merged, in order to include as many interested parties as possible.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Also, I don't agree with the last section. I would not want to rule who has committed the most in the dicision on who gets the rights.<br></blockquote><div>I don't understand your last sentence ... Can you explain ?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Sylvain</div></div></div></div>