Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:Having (centralized) control and overview is good.
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 11:45:26PM +0200, Stefan van der Eijk wrote:
I'd like to propose that we start operating this distro in "WiKi" mode.For that matter the separation between main and contrib is completely
IMHO these access controll restrictions are causing more trouble (friction) than they do good.
What we need is clear reporting on what has been going on (auditability) and let people make the changes that are needed. Nobody benefits from these requests being echoed in lists (first cooker, now maintainers) untill some demi-god finally has the time to pick it up and execute the change. We are not 4-year-olds anymore. Nobody that has access to these systems is here to break things. In principle everything everybody does on these systems is meant in a positive way.
arbitrary and not useful anymore. The only place the separation has any
effect is on security updates. And that is easily handled by just
saying that only packages shipped on the CDs are supported for security
updates. But then as far as I'm concerned there should also be a way
for contributors to update their packages for security issues (and no
the club is not a solution to that).
IMNSHO:
- Separation between contrib and main is good.
It provides a clear way to separate packages by quality, usability and usefulness.
- Restrictions in uploading/moving packages.
Most of the troubles you are talking about are my fault, not being able to handle requests in time.
However, rpmctl should be my answer to this problem, it is currently only in beta version but already allow packages removal from the contributors, next step will be to do the upload part.
But, I do still have the weakness to think that in some way some kind of centralized power is good.
I agree that the contributors are not children and do not want in any way anyhting but the good of the distro. However at some point someone must have a overview of the distro and be in charge of maintaining the whole thing in the good direction.
But it doesn't mean that you _must_ enforce this through restrictions.
In the real world there are little restrictions (anybody can run a red light), most people behave because they have norms and values. And the chance to get caught (*flash*) deters many from harming society --> this "chance to get caught" is mainly due to transparancy and auditability. Also see Bruce Schneier's book: Secrets and Lies.
What I'm asking for is that the system becomes more auditable --> creates the increased overview. And make sure that changes that have been made can be rolled back --> control.
Then the contributors can be given more freedom to make changes. In the end, the system will probably be more efficient, since there are less bottlenecks. Chances are that the quality will also increase, since many of the changes have to do with quality.
I know it's "work in progress", it's going to take a while. But I hope this direction will be considered.
regards,
Stefan
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
