Public SourceMage Discussion List

["Jeremy Blosser (emrys)" <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>]

On Jan 04, Paul Mahon [dufflebunk AT dufflebunk.homeip.net] wrote:
> 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.

Bringing these threads to conclusion and action is something I took as one
of my major responsibilities as APL.  I know I haven't been around a ton
the last month, but I haven't forgotten or just deleted things either.

Anyway, mostly just a response to say I agree and am trying to work on
making sure that happens.

> 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: pgpFhFSw2ynfh.pgp
Description: PGP signature