Mmm, and the Linux approach to that would be "if you believe in something enough you'll garner support and convince people of its merits" etc etc.
And no merit system is perfect. I think where we end up is needing guidance for how people should approach contributing work and what they can or cannot expect which should be made visible up front so they know what they're getting into. That in turn will allow people to choose or not to account for some other contribution that is as yet, un-merged. On 14 January 2011 11:08, Sim IJskes - QCG <s...@qcg.nl> wrote: > On 14-01-11 11:49, Dan Creswell wrote: > >> So the question is, when do we need consensus on such things? >> > > On the practical side, for replacing the build system. yes. > > If we have consensus in replacing it, i will instantly stop thinking about > the current system. I won't even dare to refactor a bit. But now, with the > replacement coming or not, it's in a vacuum, thinking/not thinking, > forking/not forking, thinking but not coding? And to be honest, i can't > imagine i'm the only one. I'm sure somebody out there will think: "What are > they going to do with my contribution if i make any? Accept it in trunk? Let > it rot in skunk? Delete it all together? Should i better start collecting > stamps or doing the groceries?". > > > Gr. Sim > > -- > QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl > Quality Consultancy Group b.v., Leiderdorp, Kvk Den Haag: 28088397 >
