Development Discussion Board

In the absence of an easy 'push' implementation, for me personally, that in itself wouldn't matter so much.
Just in case my previous point wasn't clear, let's assume that you just started a board and only one user has registered and posted a question. You've subscribed to the forum and so got a ...

However, I fail to see why the OP can't just open a Task in Outlook (or some other To-Do List manager) and paste a link to the topic or post in that. Why does this function need to exist in phpBB at all?
It's about efficiency - number of clicks and overall time taken. Whether I set a date and/or ...

This seems like a step closer to adding a Calendar to phpBB, which I thought was a BAD idea. If "reminders" are thought of as events, though, maybe it could be put into the phpBB event system (whenever that goes in).

However, I fail to see why the OP can't just open a Task in Outlook (or some other ...

wGEric wrote:Or even have only one RFC forum[....]

Yes, but that forum should be on phpBB.com for the reasons stated in my first post (at least until the RFC is accepted).

Steve

*snip*
3) I know of no precedent for requiring a "guest" to view the terms of service before reading the content (except, obviously for registration-required sites)
I think he meant when boards allow guest posting.
Nope, I meant what I said -- when a guest visits your board, they have to agree to ...

Unsightly, has no legal meaning, already covered in ToS.
I agree that the footer isn't the best place for this. People may not see the footer and, in contract law, it could be argued that there was no "meeting of the minds". Having to accept the ToS indicates a meeting of the minds.

However, I ...

Among all these suggestions, the only one that seems critical to me is to provide a way to display a link to the main website

I know the "clean" way is to integrate PHPBB to the template of the main website, but many people like me do it the dirty way and just install PHPBB in a completely ...

My suggestion would be to turn this proposal into two somewhat overlapping roles:

1) A code reviewer who looks at code contributions, makes suggestions, does minor patch cleanup, and makes sure data is synced between GitHub and the tracker.
2) A "people person" who attempts to guide feature ...

nextgen wrote:That's clear ... I just wanted to clarify a point on this topic

Clarify? Talking about "plantations" was just confusing.

Steve

A Liasion sounds like a good idea, but I would split it into two pieces -- a higher level person who worked with RFCs and communicated to the people on phpBB.com and a lower level person who actually worked with the code and patches. Creating requirements and working with code are two different ...