Alec Flett wrote:
Mike Taylor wrote:
1. Owner's opinion prevails
2. Reviewer's opinion prevails
3. It's put to a vote before an impartial body - most of the time
that body will be the dev list
4. <insert alternative solution here>
I have to agree with Philippe here - #3 seems like the best of the 3,
and I think #1 simply isn't an option because otherwise the owner could
just always reject the reviewer's opinions.
I think it really comes down to basic decision making, and that seems
like a good use of dev. I don't even think it always has to be a formal
vote, just more of a discussion.. I mean if two people disagree
seriously on any decision in chandler, its going to have to be hashed
out either between those people or (preferably) in the public realm to
set a precedent for future decisions on similar topics.
Apologies for jumping in on an old thread here...
I think we've seen time and again that when two people strongly disagree
about some technical decision, it helps break the deadlock to bring the
discussion to a wider group. Bringing the issue to the dev list for
discussion is an excellent way to do that. Someone may be able to shed
light on the issue or broker a compromise, and we get a record of the
decision and the decision thought process. IMHO #3 is generally a good
strategy for getting a better result, if all participants are acting in
good faith.
Perhaps Bear and Heikki are thinking more about "color of the bikeshed"
issues (more trivial matters that don't benefit from ratholing into long
discussions):
http://producingoss.com/html-chunk/bikeshed-full.html.
So far we haven't really had significant "bikeshed" conversations, so
I'm not too worried about that at this point.
As Ted pointed out, we're not going to fully resolve this until we make
broader decisions about governance structure. I'm sure we'll jump into
that conversation a bit later.
Cheers,
Katie
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
