On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 30 Sep 2011, at 15:58, Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps <[email protected]> wrote: >>> What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had >>> assumed this sort of lock-down would wait until graduation from the >>> incubator once it was clear what worked and what didn't. >>> >> >> Simon, I'm a PPMC member. I try to avoid future harm, not just deal >> with "actual current harm". It is called oversight. > > My concern was that creating of closed rule-sets before actual problems > present themselves can also lead to inefficiency. The principle is sometimes > called "YAGNI". I believe my question was reasonable and polite and I would > welcome a reply in the same tone. >
I am not suggesting a "closed rule set". I'm suggesting that we take each decision on a case-by-case basis and evaluate the candidate according to the possible roles that they might fit, and vote for the role(s) that are most appropriate. In some cases someone might become a committer, but not (initially) a PPMC member. In other cases they might become both at once. The decision should be made the PPMC, and they should have the discretion to do this. I think anyone who suggests removing this discretion from the PPMC and forcing a stance of "one size fits all" is the one who is arguing for a "closed rule set". > Thanks > > S. > >
