Ted Leung wrote: > On Dec 7, 2005, at 4:29 PM, Heikki Toivonen wrote: >>> be proven wrong I would be happy. It also seems like nobody is >>> disagreeing that we need sheriff currently because the tools are what >>> they are. > > Actually, I don't think that we agreed on this point, which might > account for the heat generated in this thread. Before today's message > I saw one message in favor of sheriff's (Philippe) and one message not > in favor of sheriff's. I don't view that as a conclusive indicator of > either agreement or disagreement. I think that this got enacted too > quickly.
I don't see it that way. Andi said he does not want to be sheriff, but I did not see him say we don't need sheriff currently. bear said that if everyone checked Tbox before and after commit there would not be need for a sheriff, but since that isn't happening it seems like there is need currently. pje said that if we had better tools and possibly organizational changes, sheriff wouldn't be needed, but he did not seem to deny the need currently. I haven't noticed others state on opinion on the need of sheriff currently. Did I miss some other opinion, or did I interpret Andi, bear or pje incorrectly? Andi did say he considers sheriff duty silly. Besides being flamebait, there is more than one way to interpret that, unfortunately. I did not interpret that as saying sheriff duty is not needed currently, though. -- Heikki Toivonen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
