Re: the future of the release team

[Mark McLoughlin <markmc redhat com>]

Hi David,

On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 15:11, David Bolter wrote:
> Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> 
> >On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 14:11, Bill Haneman wrote:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>Any changes to established processes are like changes to interfaces;
> >>they inevitably generate errors even when they are self-evident
> >>improvements.  So let's not change the interfaces unless they clearly
> >>need improving.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >	You're not a robot. We won't need to be re-build you for the new
> >interface. You're not beyond the tiniest bit of change, right ? :-)
> >
> >	Seriously, I've tried to give a very detailed rationale for the
> >suggestion and your objection boils down to "we'd have to use a
> >different email address to send patches". We need to be more open to
> >change than that.
> >
> >  
> >
> I amazed at how differently I interpret both of your positions. 

	Okay, I admit it - I'm deliberately hand-waving away Bill's point
because, although it sounds sensible, the actual effects of a change on
maintainers wouldn't be such a big deal.

	Its Friday, gimme a break ! :-)))

> Mark, one thing I want to clarify: the "release team" as an engine is 
> due for an overhaul/checkup?  If this doesn't happen things are headed 
> for badness?

	Pretty much - but rather thinking of it as the "release team" needing
an overhaul, I prefer to think of it as "how the community executes the
release process" as needing an overhaul.

Cheers,
Mark.