On 6/27/2016 11:07 AM, Paul Jakma wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016, Lou Berger wrote:
Thanks -- glad to see you're not singling me out ;-)
Grumpy old gits like me are happy to direct their ire widely, don't
worry. ;)
I was hoping you were singled out Lou! so that the wider community
feels better that they are not the target audience! ;)
I don't think I'm the only one that cares about this -- if I am, I'll
shut up and leave the list in peace.
I'm sure lots are interested.
Indeed, but I feel we are stuck in a loop with the this discussion. See
my comments below.
The way to making things better is to tease out each strand of a
knotty problem and solve it, and iterate that process. Analyse what's
there, find something make to better, do it, rinse, repeat.
So just write up the current process. It doesn't take long to look
through the list to find what's been happening, surely? Hell, as
before, 'gitk --all' or the 'refs' URI of the git i'face should give a
good clue? (Least, that was the intention).
We keep rinsing and repeating, we should move to the drying phase. ;)
The whole point of having document/documents to describe the current
situation is to avoid having to spent a lot of time looking through the
list to piece together an incomplete picture of the current situation.
Just the fact one must have a Google account to participate in this
suggests this is far from an evolution.
This is incorrect - all one needs is a browser. To demonstrate, I made
the above changes without using any google account.
I didn't realise that was now possible. Used to not be the case with a
lot of GOOG products.
Note, I have a GOOG a/c. My email is one there. I don't have any issue
with it. It's just I *know* there are people who absolutely will not
go near GOOG accounts who have been involved in Quagga. Then there's
the issue of them being blocked in places.
Not only you don't need a google account, you are also not required to
attend the Hangouts meetings to give your voice/vote/opinion on any
matter. Furthermore, while it is hard to find a time that suites every
timezone on the planet, it might be feasible to find a time slot that
suites most people. We can also rotate this slot to better accommodate
more people over time.
- Contributors can game (consciously or not) things by simply ignoring
comments for nearly 2 years, then rally others to vote in their
changes en bloc with talk about how the development process is
broken,
_failing to mention_ how they helped break it.
I agree this is wrong.
That's what's annoying me the most.
That is wrong. But I claim that this is not easy to do. I count on the
sensibility of other contributors and the larger community to stop such
actions.
To the extent that 'maintainer' is an integration role, that can be
fixed fairly quickly. It doesn't take much to establish someone can
have a go at that.
To the extent that the 'maintainers' are about final technical
arbitration, I think that should be reserved to a subset of the
community.
To the extent that the 'maintainers' are about governance over wider
issues, I think that should be reserved to another subset (probably
smaller, maybe disjoint).
Let's fix the easy one first, cause the latter two I think will take
longer. If people want to fix all of these in one go, it will just be
harder to get agreement.
This is what the Maintainers document is about.
I genuinely appreciate you engaging in this (IMO painful and
unwanted) discussion. I really do believe that *everyone* is
interested in the same thing: an inclusive, successful and vibrant
quagga.
Well, no doubt.
I also don't like the "Quexit" path! I don't appreciate this whole
"exit" wave! ...., I think we cab build a better inclusive, successful
and vibrant Quagga together... but that is just an opinion.
Regards,
Jafar
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
