"Phil Holmes" <[email protected]> writes: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Trevor Daniels" <[email protected]> > To: "David Kastrup" <[email protected]>; "Janek Warchoł" > <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 6:08 PM > Subject: Re: clear policy discussions > > >> a) a release-meister with responsibility to take all decisions. >> That's what Han-Wen used to do, I believe. It worked >> quite well, although Graham will have more of an inside view >> than I. Would need to be someone with a similarly wide >> overview. > > > In principle, I'm not against giving people authority to take > decisions where there aren't hard-and-fast rules. However, there is a > very substantial downside with this in an environment such as > LilyPond. Given our poor recent history of being able to achieve > consensus on fairly simple things (<> vs s1*0 anyone) there's a > significant possibility of large clashes where the Release Meister > makes a value judgement with which others disagree. I could envisage > a stable release being pushed out because the RM thought it optimum, > but another team member being significantly annoyed because, say, it > had a bug that stopped his music setting. All hell then starts.
Which team member is actually seriously using 2.14 still? Why are problems requiring a backport to fix "all hell"? > That's the benefit of rules - we argue over the rules slightly > dispassionately, not over the value judgements. Whoever complains gets to be the next release manager. You'll be surprised how little complaints there will be given this threat. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
