Re: GNOME Enhancement Procedure

[Chema Celorio <chema ximian com>]

> > Maciej Stachowiak <mjs noisehavoc org> writes: 
> > > First, even though I think we do need some kind of more formal
> > > process, this one sounds a bit too bureaucratic for my tastes what
> > > with all the rules and regulations.

I second Maciej here, this is not how Free Software works. Bureaucracy
is not going to help us fix the problem. It will just be a waste of
time, you can't enforce desitions in free software. Not only i do not
want to waste my time with this, but i also don't want other hackers to
waste their time. We have too many stuff to hack on already, and its not
like any of the active hackers has spare time for something like this.
Look at how hard it is to get an email reply for some of the most active
hackers. We are not writing a standard here, we are not lawyers, we are
a free software community, lets do what we do best.

> Your suggested group probably is. I was thinking of a group like
> "Havoc, Martin & Dietmar" coming out of this process, which I don't
> think would be as good, even though it is the most literal list of
> maintainers involved in this particular issue.

I have the feeling that if we go with such proposal we are going to move
the discussions into less relevant issues than the ones already beeing
dicsused. The discussions will turn into who is a relevant maintainer,
what the document needs and what the GEP _really_ meant.

The rule of command worked fine till it was broken. Things should get
discussed and your voice shall be heard by how big your contributions
are, but at the end of the day there is a clear leader who will have to
take a desition one way or the other. Desitions should be taken at the
lowest level possible, but should move up if they are not resolved. I
thought that this was how it all worked.

regards,
Chema

_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers