Gagan Saksena wrote:
> Editing a page and sending it at the same time doesn't work quite as
> well as I had thought. Now that this line did make it to the published
> status report it needs more details-- this status item reflects the
> XPCOM ownership issues which have been fairly stressful to deal with
> specially for Dougt and most mozilla.org people. I believe and trust
> that mozilla.org is working very hard at defining the process to make
> this less stressful in future.
We have a process for selecting owners; it involves
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/survey.cgi and [EMAIL PROTECTED] consensus,
with the ownership buck stopping at me in case of no consensus. This is
pretty well-known as Mozilla processes go. But no one used it in the
dougt/xpcom case. Someone (dp, I think) started saying "dougt owns
xpcom" (perhaps gagan said this too). That's not a process. It doesn't
make anyone in particular become an owner. Ownership is not asserted by
words, but by deeds in the code.
I'm happy that dougt is spending energy on xpcom now. We need more good
hacking. Ownership will take care of itself, or staff will appoint
(assert) an owner if there is unresolvable conflict among peer hackers,
or (worst case) leave a module unowned until peers learn to play well
together and acclaim an owner from their midst.
> I apologize that the application I used to edit and send this page
> didn't work as reliably as I had trusted it to.
I think there was also overstatement here, not just on your side, but on
the part of some [EMAIL PROTECTED] members. This is a tempest in a
teapot; let's let it blow away. However, you should not ask for some
new process to be defined, when the existing one was not used.
/be
