<div dir="ltr">If you and or Matt are actively supporting it then it is "Secondary".<div>If someone who is non-OMC, non-committer steps forward to say they will support it then it is Community.</div><div>Otherwise it is Unknown (unless we plan to deprecate it).</div><div><br></div><div>I have no problem with you and/or Matt and/or any OMC or committer stepping forward to place Cygwin in the Secondary status. </div><div>But if you want it in Community then a community member has to step forward.</div><div><br></div><div>Although I do see that you could elect to make it Community because you support it but not "actively" - although that wasn't the intent at all - either a team member is supporting it or a community member is. </div><div>It wasn't intended to be a second-class level of team support.</div><div><br></div><div>Tim.</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 8:17 AM, Richard Levitte <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:levitte@openssl.org" target="_blank">levitte@openssl.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Reading the platform policy (<a href="https://www.openssl.org/policies/platformpolicy.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openssl.org/<wbr>policies/platformpolicy.html</a>),<br>
the classifications seems fairly clear.<br>
<br>
Primary: well defined<br>
<br>
Secondary: at least one team member actively supports<br>
<br>
Community: one or more member of the community supports<br>
<br>
Unknown: we have no idea what the status is<br>
<br>
Deprecated: to be removed later on<br>
<br>
And yet, we're bickering over what status Cygwin should have in PR<br>
#5043 (<a href="https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5043" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/openssl/<wbr>openssl/pull/5043</a>). Why is that?<br>
I'm guessing that we don't quite agree what "actively supports"<br>
means. Is the "active" part about declaration (someone solemnly<br>
declaring "I will support Cygwin"), or is it about action and<br>
behavioral patterns (we do know that a few team members look after<br>
Cygwin, although perhaps not on a daily basis).<br>
<br>
(from my very personal point of view, I'd put Cygwin in the<br>
"community" category, 'cause even if Matt and I do test OpenSSL on<br>
Cygwin when we are the ones doing a release, that's also it as far as<br>
I know... but this isn't just about my opinion, and when opinions are<br>
clearly diverging, it's time to ask why)<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Richard<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Richard Levitte <a href="mailto:levitte@openssl.org">levitte@openssl.org</a><br>
OpenSSL Project <a href="http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.openssl.org/~<wbr>levitte/</a><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
openssl-project mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:openssl-project@openssl.org">openssl-project@openssl.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mta.openssl.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/openssl-<wbr>project</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>