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:
> I repeated it because from your reply, it was not clear you understood it,
> and didn't go into the rationale because that was further on in my email. I
> recommend reading through emails entirely before replying to them, otherwise
> you might find yourself accusing people of things like "proof by assertion".
>
> Meanwhile, it appears that you snipped the rationale from your reply, so you
> are arguing without addressing the actual content of the discussion. I would
> prefer it if you addressed the issue instead toying around with accusations.

Hmm, whenever I've heard that phrase used before or when I used it,
people just thought it was funny; no one seemed at all offended.  I
guess it must be a mathematician thing.  I apologize, I didn't mean
any offense.

I did read your email in its entirety before responding.  I'll try to
see if I can fix it a little, though.  Quoting from before:

> > 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.
>
> > I think that if it was an issue that the release-team should not have

Just to try to explain why I thought the way I did: Note that your
response above was followed immediately by this quoted comment of mine
that looked to me like a different issue.  Since you didn't mention
that you would be explaining further later, I assumed (incorrectly,
apparently) that the repetition of your statement was the entirety of
your response to that particular question of mine.  I don't know if
that's helpful at all (and I'm sorry if it isn't), but I'm just trying
to find ways to help us get back on the same page.  :)

> > decided, then the board should have officially stepped in and said so at
> > some point.  That didn't happen.
>
> 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.

This was the part I responded to.

> It was not necessary to make this decision, this particular
> aspect of the broader discussion (which I attempted to deconflate) was not
> discussed in sufficient detail, and it is the kind of decision that has
> *very* wide-ranging impact for all stakeholders in GNOME, not just the very
> near developer community. That's why I marked it as "short to medium term"
> in my email about the broader discussion.

And this was the part I snipped, apparently causing some unintentional
angst.  Was this the part that you were referring to as being a
continuation of the previous response, or did I still miss some?  I'll
try to respond, but it's probably just becoming clear that we disagree
on some things.

I thought gtk#-in-the-desktop had been discussed about as much as any
issue ever had (it's been out there for years, after all, and the
recent threads weren't exactly tiny).  If that's not enough
discussion, I'm not sure how to measure what is.  Also, alacarte had
virtually 0 discussion about it, yet we still came to a conclusion
about it.  So I don't see how insufficient-discussion is a measure
that makes it inappropriate for the release-team to decide.

Yes, gtk#-in-the-desktop has a wide impact on the stakeholders of
Gnome (though I think the added rule about dependencies lessens that
impact), but other decisions also have a large impact -- evolution,
pygtk & friends in the desktop, etc.  Sure, you could claim
gtk#-in-the-desktop has a bigger impact, and I wouldn't argue with
you.  But if there exists a module that has too high of an impact for
the release-team to decide, then where is the line drawn?  If we agree
that gtk#-in-the-desktop is too high an impact, then we are suddenly
unable to decide on anything for the release sets until we get
concretely rules on what's allowed and what isn't.  That can be
especially problematic given that not everyone will agree on the
impact.  The only reasonable solution I can see is that the board
should be allowed to step in and declare certain things to be too high
of an impact if they wish and then they can decide.  But, I think if
they don't do so, we can and should move forward with decisions.