On 30 Sep 2011, at 16:06, Rob Weir wrote: > 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".
I was attempting to describe the YAGNI principle for you; that was not the subject of my question, which remains unanswered. I would welcome an answer to my question please. Thanks, S.
