On 9/21/07, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Just propose a polite way to move from the commit for a controversial > > change ( i.e. when someone feels strongly it's going to the wrong > > direction, > > even > > if technically code is ok ) to the majority and 3+1 process - and > > we're > > done. > > > > As you know - some people are complaining that veto is abused ( and > > that's > > right ), > > many Rs turn into flame wars and get personal - so the issue is how > > to avoid > > > > a technical code discussion for a non-technical or subjective issue. > > > > First, it's important to recall that whether under CTR or RTC, > there is always Review. If people, after something has > been committed under CTR has issues with it, then > that is Reviewing it after all. We already discussed > technical voting, but what about "direction" or "vision" > review. Or, as you said in a previous Email: > > > ... a polite way of saying: > > > > "Hey, nothing wrong with the code itself, but I don't think there > > is enough > > support from > > the community for the direction you're going - could you confirm > > that a > > majority and > > at least 3 people think it fits our goals ?" > > > > That's still part of the review process... Vetoes are > there to prevent code from being committed, but not > all reviews are for the functional aspects of the > actual code but rather to determine how much support > there is for an implementation or feature... So I would > say that this is still a valid and expected part > of the R in *both* CTR and RTC. > > The thing is, of course, one cannot veto code based > on non-technical reasons, but one can certainly review > it based on such reasons and ask for some guidance that > it makes sense. IMO, most of those types of cases > should fall into the following types: > > 1. People who agree and will help support it, > implement it, etc... (+1) > 2. People who don't care one way or another. (+0) > 3. People who don't like it, but hey, if it helps > you out and there are other people behind it, > I won't stand in your way. (-0.9) > 4. I don't like it and this is why. It would be > a mistake. (-1)
+1 If possible, add 5 and 6: 5. I may like it, but as a module that is not enabled by default. 6. I may like it, but as a standalone module, easy to download and install, but not bundled in the base distro. Both 5 and 6 should be counted as -0.9 on the change itself, but as +0.9 if the concern is addressed. Yes, if everyone understand this - and we stop using early commit/lazy consensus and veto to get around R by a larger set of people - big +1. I like CTR and having an official trunk where active development happens - but I don't like the endless discussion about veto validity and some big changes made without consensus or consultation - that was the main reason I support a partial RTC until people get used to the idea of getting a +3 for important changes. Costin
