1. The trademarks should be a non-issue. The stuff in the tree *does* reflect the fact that we used to have two sets of marks, one for official builds, and one for everything else. Thaat distinction existed to support a business strategy which no longer exists, so we should be able to simply things a bit. 2. Committee? I prefer the word "meritocracy". You guys already function this way. There is no such thing as authority. There is only "influence". You want influence? Then work on the project. The more you work, the more influence you end up getting, as a natural consequence. I already think of Sam and Martin as the project leaders for AbiWord, based on this very model. Note that this concept is merely a rough approximation, since there are others who really work hard on AbiWord as well. No offense is intended. I'm merely pointing out that Sam and Martin are two examples of people who have attained greater influence on the development of AbiWord than I currently have. They do more for the project than I do. This aspect of things is not a change from the status quo. That's the way you guys already do things, as far as I can tell. ----- Original Message ----- From: "sam th" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Dom Lachowicz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "abiword developer list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 7:06 PM Subject: Re: [RFC] A Proposal for Binary Release Management > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Dom Lachowicz wrote: > > > >(1) The decision is made to cut a new binary release on a certain date, > > >and on that date the tree is closed (this should only happen if tinderbox > > >is all green). > > I can agree with this point. My question is "But what will we use for > > tinderbox?" If we had boxes to run tinderbox on (i.e. on all supported > > platforms), we wouldn't have the "build problem" in the first place because > > we could just ship those stripped binaries. Where would we get the > > tinderboxes? Or am I missing something obvious? > > Well, there are several reasons to keep these issues seperate: > > 1) SourceGear may let us keep tinderbox. AFAIK, it doesn't require > anyone's time at the moment, and I should be able to administer the whole > thing remotely anyway. > > 2) We have binaries on more than we have tinderbox (although that would be > nice to remedy). > > 3) I would like to keep the two seperate, just for simplicity. > > 4) If we lose tinderbox@sourcegear, we should have a good method for > getting binaries anyway. > > > > > > > > >Potential Questions- > > > > > >Can we use SourceGear's trademarked images? > > >How many verifications are neccessary? > > >Should we use PGP/GPG encryption/signing? > > >Who should make the decisions mentioned above? > > Are you proposing we have a "benevolent dictator" to manage releases, acting > > as an official maintainer? Possibly maintainer by committee (e.g. those with > > cvs access get a vote?) I'm fine with either proposition. I'd also volunteer > > for either, but there are other highly qualified people on this list too who > > are more deserving than myself. > > I think 'rule by committee' is where this project is headed, but more on > that later. > > sam th > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.abisource.com/~sam/ > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org > > iD8DBQE5x/9/t+kM0Mq9M/wRApQ5AJ4geeti7I4O9XBnxZUiMjxJrTmjmQCfRAFw > hYPZqwV6VDpY2PZghEwblKc= > =0UYL > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
