Jesse Eichar wrote: >> I am concerned that with the two week window we would not be able to >> respond quickly enough to the kind of problems encountered over >> GeoTools 2.4 development. Need to emphasis that that "collaboration" >> is needed rather then "veto"; so the GeoServer style +1, -1, +0, -0 >> style voting would be helpful. That is -1 means an actual commitment >> to help, and no feedback is taken as +0 etc... > I meant that 2 weeks with no feedback. If it is an active debate then > it can continue. But if no one makes any comments then it is assumed > that everyone agrees. That is to fire people to pay attention to > those issues. However lets make a rule that at 2 weeks the developer > must send an email saying he is going to assume the proposal is > accepted. That is the last change for other members to jump in. Okay ... still not sure I can ask people to wait that long.
We have been operating under a three day rule; ie send the email, start the work, hopefully you get feedback, if not commit after three days. Admittedly this is more useful for day to day gaps in the library (like default geometry not being handled by property access last week). When doing things like DataAccess we discussion was open for two meetings which seems reasonable. Two weeks is a long time to go without a commit; indeed often it is useful to have the code out there in order to talk about. Jody ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
