On 10/05/2015 01:00 PM, Stephen Mallette wrote: > Ok, Rich is probably talking in the context you are describing Daniel - > that brings the two positions in line in my mind -thanks. > > I like what you wrote here: > >> You can have informal discussions beforehand, yes, but the > decision-making discussion MUST be done on the list before you start > calling a vote. Examples of this are API-breaking changes, minor/major > version changes, new/updated roadmaps etc. > > But aren't we doing that? If ALL of the work we do against for code is > documented in JIRA, is that not sufficient place for discussion? The > creation of a JIRA ticket is not saying, "I created this, therefore it must > be done and it must be done for this version and in this timeframe." It's > saying, "Here's an issue I believe should be worked on....feedback is > welcome," Judging by the activity on the issues in JIRA, I'd say our > community understands it as the latter. >
If all major decisions are made through a system that allows for provenance, that is fine - I would prefer the big stuff be discussed on the mailing list (and not inside JIRA), so other people can join in. Discussing everything in JIRA makes it hard to follow, as a lot of people tune out JIRA messages by default. However, the impression we sometimes get is that some decisions are made via skype or other non-ASF channels, and then brought to the ML for a vote or notification, and that part is NOT okay. I can find examples of this if need be, but I'm sure you can find them yourself as well. With regards, Daniel.
