On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Marcus Sorensen <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the followup Chip, I think I have a better idea now. > > The silence == consent thing is a bit hard for me to take; as a committer I > have the ability to really screw things up, and so there's a lot of > potential fallout from moving forward with something only to find out that > someone missed a conversation. It also sort of validates how we've been > doing things, if a feature is discussed, but there's little community > interest, that sort of seems like the go ahead for us to just work on it > and offer up our solution, with the caveat that the implementation needs to > be spelled out in detail so to reduce blowback if some unexpected result > occurs that was overlooked simply because nobody was really interested in > the feature when it was being discussed (that worries me too). This sort of > links back up with Alex's thread about knowing who is a mentor or leader > over each aspect of the project and understanding who to get buyoff from > for a new feature. >
So I'll add to this - changes aren't set in stone after a discussion period or commit. The magic of version control essentially lets us revisit decisions - at least before release. For instance - Alex just called out a problem with an upgrade script - and that was committed well over a week ago, and I expect it will be fixed before release. --David
