On 01/22/2017 10:58 AM, Sandro Knauß wrote: > For me the whole text sounds to bureaucratic and too many "you can do this > after waiting that long" .
I hear you, but we just had a major blow-up about this topic where people got extremely agitated and threatened to walk out. The hoped benefit of specifying the details in a policy doc is that it gives people a clear idea of what is expected of them and what they are in their right to do and when, which ideally minimizes opportunities for blaming each other instead of blaming the doc. If you go back to the original discussion, a central problem was that sysadmin wants advance notice, but it wasn't clear how much advance notice is good enough, and devs had concerns about too long time windows in context of projects with short release cycles, etc. - this was a major bone of contention, so I feel the doc had to make an attempt to submit a compromise. The doc tries to make a compromise between what people felt in their right to do and reasonable. Note that this document isn't necessarily set in stone for all time: We try to live with it for some time, and if it turns out we can't, we kick off another discussion process to refine or replace it. I expect that people understand a fresh policy needs a trial period before killing each other over it. I also expect people to make a honest effort to try and follow it, though. Bureaucracy can be a nuisance. But it can also slow things down when needed, and dissipate strong emotions by turning them away from people. Cheers, Eike
