Re: the future of the release team

Mark McLoughlin wrote:

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.

Okay then. I tend to agree with Bill that it has been nice for maintainers to make use of the release-team as it currently exists, and to ignore the internals chaos... but, I do think it would be exciting to allow more involvement. Also, seeing names pegged to responsibilities on a web page might also foster a sense of added accountability... But like Bill (I think), I don't want to suggest that there is anything wrong with things as they are -- from the outside.

Mark I like your ideas and if they are necessary - I'd vote go4it.




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]