Re: Decisions you didn't intend to make [Was: Minutes of the meeting (2006-07-31)]

["Elijah Newren" <newren gmail com>]

On 8/1/06, Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org> wrote:
> It seemed pretty clear to me during the first meeting that there was
> agreement on this point

It seemed pretty clear to me that there was agreement that the idea of
franchising the release process was worth pursuing (I believe I was
one of those who voiced support).  If there was any agreement at all
on this other issue, it escaped me.  *shrug*

> > To be honest, from my vantage point all I could see you doing was
> > repeatedly claim that people were conflating the issues without explaining
> > why they aren't intrinsically connected.
>
> That was explained in my (lengthy, explanatory) email to d-d-l.

I read it, and the follow up emails, but missed any explanation of why
these things weren't intrinsically connected.  Like I said, maybe I
was just being dense and it really was there.  But I somehow didn't
catch it.

> > > making a decision that, all things considered, is inappropriate for the
> > > release team - alone, at this time, with the non-specific discussion
> > > we've had so far about this issue - to make.
> >
> > Perhaps I'm missing something, but I definitely don't follow. Care to
> > explain why it's inappropriate for the release team to make?
>
> Note what I said: It's inappropriate for the release team - *alone, at this
> time, with the non-specific discussion we've had so far on this issue* - to
> make this decision.

Yes, I noted the assertion you made.  I asked if you could explain
your assertion and give a reason why it was true, but you merely
repeated it.  Proof by assertion tends to leave me confused rather
than clearing things up.  ;-)

> I was not speaking for the board, but I felt it was pretty clear (and also
> thought it was agreed) that it was an inappropriate time and circumstance
> for the release team to make the policy decision regarding Gtk# and the
> Desktop suite.

Well, that wasn't at all clear to me or anyone else at the meeting, as
far as I can tell.  So, I guess we had a communication disconnect
somewhere.  Sorry about that.  :(

> > I'd be more than willing to state that some individuals want to take the
> > decision to the foundation board, and reminding everyone that the
> > foundation board has oversight of the release-team and ought to exercise
> > that oversight when they feel it's in the community's best interests.
> > Would that help you feel better?
>
> Possibly - like I said above, I do not have an immediate idea about how to
> fix this, and I am not willing to jump to any conclusions or make any
> assumptions about it right now. That is another way to approach it, but it
> is laden with additional problems ("FOUNDATION BOARD OVERRULES RELEASE TEAM
> ON MONO DECISION" is a pretty clear message you could take from it). I just

I think that'd be a poor way to see it.  I honestly think the board
should have more oversight over the release team and various other
groups in the community.  Especially since the board is elected and
the r-t is not; having oversight from the board seems critical to me
long-term for things to remain successful.  Of course, I'm sure I'm
just preaching to the choir here.

> > ...but I have to admit you are correct about who I was thinking of when
> > targetting the message.
>
> That's exactly why I said it that way. :-)

:-)

Cheers,
Elijah