Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-admin - general admin (WAS Re: [SM-Admin] Cleaning up old Perforce workspaces...)

sm-admin AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Developer Only Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Hamish Greig <hgreig AT bigpond.net.au>
  • To: sm-admin AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: general admin (WAS Re: [SM-Admin] Cleaning up old Perforce workspaces...)
  • Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 14:01:48 +1100

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:14, Eric Sandall wrote:
> I just meant in general, and to say it again, that we should fire a warning
> shot across their bow, first, which I've already done for the inactive
> ones, and got responses back for most of them and removed appropriately.
>
> -sandalle

I understood from previous discussions that you are in *general* agreement
with this.
I was hoping to get acceptance of this by all team members, so it could be
accepted as policy from now on. If we all agree on things (or at least
establish a majority rule), then we all know what to expect from each other
in the future :)
Maybe things such as this need to be advertised as voting items at the next
meeting, and non-attendance at the meeting (or not organising proxy voting if
unable to attend) disallows anyone from future dissent, unless they are
proposing a working substitution ? Things like last years devel grimoire
removal, the series of complaints from people after the fact (not involved in
the official vote during the meeting) and the utter frustration of revisiting
the same simple issues on a regular basis could be solved with either a good
mail list voting policy (similar to apache were +1 means you are actively for
it) or using the meetings as a voting booth.

What I would like to see are policies, rules and guidelines. Not because I am
a fascist pig, but so we all know exactly what to expect from each other. If
we outline specific points we need not worry that we will be stuck with them
for eternity, as changing something already documented is a lot easier than
first finding out what the status quo is and only then being able to lobby
for or against it.
This is most likely an issue to be decided during the restructure post 1.0,
and even if we delay it until then, at least we all know it is an item on the
agenda.


Hamish
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAIbIk8fSufZR6424RAiJtAJ9vlXGl4uFK/uF96a75lKjOgs3MiACfd0PN
tXa6TVXK4rvP8DcGV8NumFs=
=DH25
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page