incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Date Fri, 30 Sep 2011 15:35:13 GMT
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Simon Phipps <> wrote:
> On 30 Sep 2011, at 16:06, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps <> wrote:
>>> On 30 Sep 2011, at 15:58, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps <>
>>>>> 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.

I'd recommend rereading my response to Ross.  Rory seems to get it.
But I'm not really obligated to argue a point that I am not making,
namely "actual current harm".  I'm willing to concede that fact, as
well as the fact that I have fire insurance even though my house is
not currently on fire, or that I pack a lunch even though I'm not
currently hungry, or that I try to steer the Podling toward
reasonable, sustainable long term decision making processes, even
though we have not graduated.

BTW, LO/TDF has a steering committee of what?  13 people total?  Have
you recommending to them that they put their entire elected membership
into a "flat" leadership structure?  Or is that wisdom, by your grace,
reserved for us alone?


> Thanks,
> S.

View raw message