Re: Current status

Joe Shaw <> writes:
> That's a little stronger than I meant, but the release schedule for 1.4 is
> an example, and whether or not to include certain packages.

Right. (One thing I've noticed about release schedule discussions is
that very few people participate, but the ones that do care a lot. I'm
not sure what this means. Anyway, I have no real sense of what "the
community" would want for the 1.4 schedule, aside from the end users,
who want everything as soon as they can get it. Most developers never
say anything on the topic, and indeed a large segment seem totally
happy to hack for years and never make a release.)
I can say that my views on 1.4 are my personal ones. Red Hat the
company doesn't have a position on this. Though Owen and Jonathan and
I have discussed it and have similar views.

> Right, and I didn't mean to give that impression. I don't want to remove
> key players. I just want to ensure that (a) GNOME policy isn't
> dictated solely by a bunch of corporations and that (b) there is fair
> representation amongst all the companies and contributors.

Easy to agree with that. But we have to figure out _how_.
> I would prefer a larger membership that approves decisions by the board in
> certain cases, like release engineering. I think in most cases the
> majority of the community wouldn't oppose the decisions of the board for
> that sort of thing, and if they did then there is probably a pretty good
> reason for it.

Maybe a good approach would be to put the board in charge of releases,
but allow for a sort of veto-by-referendum to make sure the board
builds consensus first.


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