On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Ben Walton <[email protected]> wrote: > Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Tue May 10 12:01:13 -0400 2011: > >> Not every issue is worth voting about. But some are. As such, I >> think there should be some kind of official trigger for the >> dissenting voice(s) to be able to start a vote on a policy/release >> toolchain issue. > > This is all well and good, but it's a tangential issue to what we're > proposing here. Replacing a human release manager with csw-upload-pkg > does not strictly require changes to other day-to-day activities aside > from how packages are pushed for release. It's a change in workflow. > > Policy discussions, resolutions and changes to checkpkg to reflect the > former can happen as they have been or we can implement stricter > controls (sob/ab, etc). I'm not against standardizing how changes > happen, but it's a side issue.
What you seem to be saying is, "Hey, its time to change the workflow. Lets not bother thinking about the *impact* of changing the workflow, lets just go ahead and change it! " This is a poor "policy workflow", in and of itself. Coincidentally, the parts that you dont seem to think are worth discussing BEFORE the change, are the parts that put you and maciej directly in charge of the workflow AFTER the change. AND, coincidentally, you and maciej will be the ones who will control any later avenues of complaint or adjustment against the "workflow" once it is implemented. In legal, and corporate circles, this is what is known as a "conflict of interest". _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
