On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Simon Phipps <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. >
I'd recommend rereading my response to Ross. Rory seems to get it. But I'm not really obligated to argue a point that I am not making, namely "actual current harm". I'm willing to concede that fact, as well as the fact that I have fire insurance even though my house is not currently on fire, or that I pack a lunch even though I'm not currently hungry, or that I try to steer the Podling toward reasonable, sustainable long term decision making processes, even though we have not graduated. BTW, LO/TDF has a steering committee of what? 13 people total? Have you recommending to them that they put their entire elected membership into a "flat" leadership structure? Or is that wisdom, by your grace, reserved for us alone? -Rob > Thanks, > > S. > >
