On 17 January 2012 01:06, Leo Simons <m...@leosimons.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > <snip/> >> We may also have semantic gaps. Leo's [RT] may be presuming that a >> podling's "board report"[sic] is merely a bureaucratic requirement. > <snip/> > > Hmm :-) > > And so the threads collide... > > ...I guess I'll allow it. But since we're in my thoughts now, I'll go > ahead and say something :-) > > I would say that > you need to provide a quarterly report using this template > and add it to that wiki page > and then get it signed off by a mentor [1] > is a somewhat bureaucratic expression of > your community needs to be self-reflective > and periodically tell us how things are going, > because of [X] and [Y]" [1] > and that the expression of the latter is perhaps more important than > the expression of the former. It's definitely more interesting!
And it's more useful. I think a lot of the arguments about rules stem from the fact that the assumptions and reasoning behind the rules is rarely made explicit. This has several consequences: - people don't like the rules because their purpose is not understood - if the rules are unclear (e.g. edge cases), it's not obvious how they need to be interpreted - it's very difficult to adapt the rules if the underlying assumptions change --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
