Anthony Towns <[email protected]> wrote: > Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > >> What is sad is that there are many decisions in the Project which are >> *not* made this way. I want a DPL that will promise to tell every >> team "you must explain and defend your decisions". > > That's only a reasonable thing to do if you can also offer an > assurance like "Your explanations will be listened to with respect, > and you won't need to read thousand-message threads attacking your > commitment to the values of the project over your decisions."
I don't think this is right; rather I guess it's the other way round. If a team has a history of _not_ explaining and defending their decisions, there's no way to tell what the result is if they start doing it. You simply cannot assure them. The only way to get things working - and of making sure they weill be listened to with respect - is to start explaining and defending. That's just the same as with joining teams: You can't say "I'll offer my help, but only if I am assured people will listen respectfully and apply my patches without lengthy discussions". Instead, you go on and send patches, until people notice that you're not just whining, but in fact have a reason for what you plan, and that it makes the package/team processes better. > Sorry, I'm going to continue not responding to your other question for > a little while yet; for reasons I expect'll become obvious. You mean, because he pissed you (or others you work together with) off in a different thread, you are not going to answer his direct, non-flaming question? Otherwise it is *not* obvious to me. Regards, Frank -- Frank K�ster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Z�rich Debian Developer
