Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 1, 2022. It is now read-only.

Response to reconciliation proposal? #28

Closed
runvnc opened this issue Feb 27, 2015 · 5 comments
Closed

Response to reconciliation proposal? #28

runvnc opened this issue Feb 27, 2015 · 5 comments

Comments

@runvnc
Copy link

runvnc commented Feb 27, 2015

Hi, whats the response to the reconciliation proposal? Or, since it wasnt posted on this repo, does that mean it does not exist and doesnt need to be addressed directly?

@ben-page
Copy link

@runvnc Let's not jump to conclusions. Hopefully, they will discuss it here.

nodejs/node#978

@mikeal
Copy link
Contributor

mikeal commented Feb 27, 2015

For reference, this was posted to joyent/node nodejs/node-v0.x-archive#9295 and was closed/locked as off-topic with a pointer to this repository for discussion. However, I would encourage people to comment on the proposal itself nodejs/node#978 so that we can incorporate feedback in to the proposal. It is still a draft and should be a conversation not an ultimatum so I wouldn't want the JNAB to "respond" to it, I would prefer them to participate in the process of drafting it along with the rest of the community.

@isaacs
Copy link

isaacs commented Feb 27, 2015

Suggested questions to spur discussion, as I suggested (and got much head-nodding in response to) at the last JNAB meeting: https://groups.google.com/a/nodejs.org/d/msg/advisoryboard/1SgXQzyMTso/xhAf2klcELQJ

I would really like to see some collaboration from the Node.js team on this. Specifically, @tjfontaine.

@fengmk2
Copy link

fengmk2 commented Feb 27, 2015

Ping JNAB members.

@piscisaureus
Copy link
Contributor

See #30.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants