As it looks like we're not going to switch source control while adopting a development team of unknown size I am happy. There is plenty of consensus on getting open issues fixed and creating a stable trunk in this and other threads so that sounds good too.
A decision making process would be nice. We could easily hold such votes in a invitation only group managed by all the committers. Preceding vote discussions with a "Vote:" prefix and maintaining a policy of not posting arguments or points of view in excess of "in favor" or "not in favor" in such discussions would make the process quite clean. That's far from complete. There are additional things needed, like time limits and a consensus on who posts that the vote finished and whatnot. But the process would be accessible and transparent and those sound like the most important details. Just a thought anyway. I would also like some input from Alex on whether or not he does wish to pass control of the project down to a group of volunteers. Richard On Aug 16, 4:41 pm, "Martin O'Leary" <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/8/16 Tartley <[email protected]>: > > > I wouldn't normally suggest a poll, but in this case I think that the > > pros and cons of each case are already clear to everyone, and > > whichever decision we make will work just fine. Therefore it's more > > important to make the decision in a way that keeps the most people > > happy and engaged, then we can move on. > > > Does a poll seem productive? Or is more chat required to assess the > > merits of using or not-using a DVCS? > > I think there's an issue here in that the project doesn't have a > decision-making process. There was a fairly effective one in place > (Alex makes decisions), but that's changed now to an extent that I > think is unclear. I really would appreciate some clarification from > Alex about how much control over the project he is handing over to > "the community". As Adam pointed out a few posts back in this thread, > people have been jumping the gun on this, assuming that an offer of > commit access to the repository is the same as an offer of complete > control over the project. > > For my part, I don't think mailing list polls are a good way to make > project decisions, be they logistical ones such as this, or the design > and technical decisions which are going to have to be made down the > road. Pyglet has benefited thus far from a strong individual vision of > how things should be done. I'd hate to see that lost in any future > structure, and I have fairly strong concerns about the ability of > mailing list democracy to emulate it. > > On a more concrete not, my objections to a switch to a DVCS are fairly > mild - I'm certainly willing to compromise with those who hold much > stronger views in the other direction. However, I am strongly against > the idea that we should make this change without the decision to do so > happening in an organised manner. Let's work out how decisions are > going to be made before we start making any. > > Martin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pyglet-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
