Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Paul Mahon <dufflebunk AT dufflebunk.homeip.net>]

I agree it's a problem SMGL has. But I'm afraid I do not think voting on
everything a good idea. We have team leads for a reason, let them do
their job and not hamstring them with having to make a vote for
everything that might cause ripples of dissatisfaction. 

What has to be done is *someone* has to look back through the email
threads and try to list all the times discussions of important stuff has
suddenly died, and try to discover the reasons behind the premature
death. (From memory, it seems they usually die when a spec or coding is
necessary, stuff that takes time and work and we are always short of
time.) But a proper solution can't proposed until we have information on
the problem and the cause.

On Wed, 2006-04-01 at 09:54 +0100, Mathieu L. wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 12:00:16AM -0800, Andrew wrote:
> 
> <snip>
>  
> > Of course, people will always have different ideas on stuff. Is the
> > system-update feature a sorcery sub-command? or an option to the
> > sorcery tool?
> > 
> > Following tradition we should now start a long verbose thread on the topic
> > without any real progress, then have it abruptly end without resolution.
> > 
> > :-)
> 
> I'm glad you're joking on that, bringing up what seems to be quite an
> important problem to me; because as you said it happened already several
> times and I think it really slows down smgl's evolving. 
> So, what I propose here is that we think about a formal way of solving
> this kind of issue. I mean for example why don't we just call an
> official vote when there is a clear divergence of opinions between 2
> (or more) devs? 
> For this precise case, since someone clearly suggested that he'd prefer
> the usual long options syntax instead of the subcommand syntax, it would
> be up to him (if you, as the responsible for such an implementation
> still don't agree with him) to call for an offcial vote.
>  Then all devs
> would vote according to some rules (which sandalle would be pleased to
> come up with ;) ) and then you would have to comply with the result of
> that vote. Of course, this is only an example on how things could be
> done, but at least I think it would somehow end up in a productive
> result.
> 
> What do you all think about that? (should we vote about it? ;) )
> 
> Cheers,
> Mathieu.
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part