Community mailing list archives
Re: OCA Organizationby
Hi Stefan, thanks for the links, ideed it is good for interested parties to look it up. I wanted to avoid to make this discussion specific though, because it is something that can be improved at the OCA base line. This is why the cited attitude is an illustrative and pointed pars pro toto. I hope it has been widely understood as such, and not as offence or something alike.
El vie., 16 oct. 2015 a las 11:17, Amit (<email@example.com>) escribió:
Thanks Joel,This is really helpful for us!We are planning since a long to contribute in OCA but we don't know where to start.But your explanation helps us a lot and I think this helps to many community member.BrowseInfo team will be contribute soon to the OCA community.ThanksAmit ParikSkype:amit.parik
Sent from my iPhone
On 16-Oct-2015, at 2:03 PM, Stefan Rijnhart <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:On 15-10-15 20:12, David Arnold wrote: > > And third input: > Some reviewer's "gateway attitude" on PRs without adequate levels of > comprehension and guidance is probably the one thing that most impacts > the OCA experience. > > Any of the kind of "I do it for free in my spare time so shut up" > attitude is not a favour to the OCA's goals. > > OCA always will be a "soft authority", and constitution of "soft > authorities" work quite a bit different. > > Look at the docker example, they do many things very well. > Hi David, assuming you are talking about your aborted attempts to change the OpenUpgrade documentation, let me link to the discussions so that everyone can judge by themselves. https://github.com/OCA/OpenUpgrade/pull/364 https://github.com/OCA/OpenUpgrade/pull/365 Where do you read "I do it for free in my spare time so shut up" exactly? Thanks, Stefan. -- Opener B.V. - Business solutions driven by open source collaboration Stefan Rijnhart - Consultant/developer mail: email@example.com tel: +31 (0) 20 3090 139 web: https://opener.am