On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 00:24:59 +0900 Christophe Sadoine <ch...@indefini.org> said:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 at 09:17, Carsten Haitzler <ras...@rasterman.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 08:15:48 -0400 Mike Blumenkrantz > > <michael.blumenkra...@gmail.com> said: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > We've just completed our first round of voting ( > > > https://phab.enlightenment.org/T7283). The process was a success overall, > > > > what on earth.... a success overall? how can you claim this? 2 polls. 1 had > > one vote, one had 2 votes. in total 3 votes. they don't allow multiple > > choices. the voting against was confusing to 50% of the people voting... > > and tbh i voted only for the lease bad option because i disliked them all... > > I agree the voting was a bit weird. > And I think there should only be a vote against a proposal if a > consensus cannot be reached. > People could just comment on the proposal task there if they are against it. > I only see a need for voting if one wants to know what other > developers would like to have the most for the next release. that would allow multiple choice voting > > > Q: Why proposals? > > > A: Previously, EFL releases were like a giant pile of unrelated and > > > uncoordinated work. There was no oversight and nobody knew what anyone > > > else was doing. This methodology provides solutions to these issues and > > > allows for a framework within which contributors can work cooperatively on > > > features for each release. > > > > yet the community was happy and functioned. we got along like friends. had > > our arguments and spats but functioned. > > I think that is where most people would argue that it is/was not functioning. > Maybe it was before, but it looks like it isn't anymore... because people stopped communicating. certainly in public channels (email, irc). but calling it a success is just entirely incorrect. it's giving legitimacy to something that is far from legitimate. > > i for one will happily approve any patches/work that is of value and has > > been done well that is brought to my attention. proposal or not (if it's a > > patch submitted). if someone wanted to add something they needed or wanted > > and it was not proposed - more power to them. they are enjoying themselves > > doing what they wanted. > > if someone wants to add something that was not proposed, it is fine! that's not what these mails say. they say you have to go through a proposal process, get that approved etc. pretty much. > Just communicate about it... they can say "hey I am working on this, > what do you think" that is just more communication right? I think this > is what proposals are for. > But like I said before I don't see why there should be a voting > session against the proposals. There should be good reasons to be > against a proposal first. voting seems too arbitrary. really any rejection of work should be based on technical/architecture and overall "does it fit" decisions. not voting. if someone is willing to do the work - more power to them. is it "good" IMHO is the key to acceptance. does it compile? does it work? is the code decent? does it fit with the architecture/design? is it just out of place? (a patch for a space invaders game as an elm widget for example would be out of place. it's not something a widget set should carry with it). > > a todo list for people to pick from if they are short on ideas or see things > > there they'd prefer to work on is what is useful. this bureaucracy is not. > > i am seriously disliking where you want to push things and consider this a > > big push back. > > I think it is more or less what we agreed before in irc meetings, > isn't it? maybe I've missed some. yes. but these mails are talking about only allowing work on things that have proposals etc. etc. - see "when do i need a proposal" for example. reading as a totality this is what it comes off as. > If you have a big feature that will change efl it seems normal to have > a task (proposal) to discuss about it. (and small features do not need > proposals) > For example if there had been a proposal for the gadgets you could > have said from the start you were against it (maybe you did and I > missed it) instead of when it landed. i could have... but see above - it comes off as an approval process. > Because they did what you described exactly, they worked on something > they wanted and merged it. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > _______________________________________________ > enlightenment-devel mailing list > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- Carsten Haitzler - ras...@rasterman.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
