incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Date Fri, 30 Sep 2011 15:15:35 GMT

On 30 Sep 2011, at 16:06, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps <simon@webmink.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On 30 Sep 2011, at 15:58, Rob Weir wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps <simon@webmink.com> wrote:
>>>> What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had assumed
this sort of lock-down would wait until graduation from the incubator once it was clear what
worked and what didn't.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Simon, I'm a PPMC member.  I try to avoid future harm, not just deal
>>> with "actual current harm".  It is called oversight.
>> 
>> My concern was that creating of closed rule-sets before actual problems present themselves
can also lead to inefficiency. The principle is sometimes called "YAGNI". I believe my question
was reasonable and polite and I would welcome a reply in the same tone.
>> 
> 
> I am not suggesting a "closed rule set".   I'm suggesting that we take
> each decision on a case-by-case basis and evaluate the candidate
> according to the possible roles that they might fit, and vote for the
> role(s) that are most appropriate.  In some cases someone might become
> a committer, but not (initially) a PPMC member.  In other cases they
> might become both at once.  The decision should be made the PPMC, and
> they should have the discretion to do this.
> 
> I think anyone who suggests removing this discretion from the PPMC and
> forcing a stance of "one size fits all" is the one who is arguing for
> a "closed rule set".

I was attempting to describe the YAGNI principle for you; that was not the subject of my question,
which remains unanswered. I would welcome an answer to my question please.

Thanks,

S.


Mime
View raw message