apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "'Aaron Bannert'" <aa...@clove.org>
Subject Re: more notes on the apr_time_t issue
Date Sat, 13 Jul 2002 16:45:08 GMT
On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 09:35:58AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> We need two, one for standard time, and one for intervals, which are
> rooted at an arbitrary point in time.  However, even with just one
> implementation, the ideas being thrown about now are too complex.

(Those are technically the same thing, but we are in agreement here.)

> A big reason that they are too complex, is that rather than come up with
> a simple design, we are all afraid of the damned vetos that are being
> thrown about.  This whole conversation should just start over, with no
> vetos, and no emotions.  Vetos should be a last resort, but we don't use
> them as a last resort, we use them as a way to shape where people go
> with their ideas.

"Voters intending to veto an action item should make their opinions
known to the group immediately, so that the problem can be remedied as
early as possible." (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html)

> Everytime a veto is thrown out, the development gets more
> confrontational.  What I hate most about this, is that I am a big reason
> that the damned vetos are as common as they are.

I disagree. I think we've actually almost come to a consensus, and I think
that is a testament to our process. Starting over implies throwing out
people's opinions and decisions, surely you wouldn't want to do that.

-aaron

Mime
View raw message