1 |
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
2 |
> The current "every change" policy goes overboard, I doubt anyone |
3 |
> disagrees, but it's worth repeating the point someone else made already, |
4 |
> every added exception makes the rule harder to remember. The four |
5 |
> numbered exceptions (plus my proposed exception to the exception) above |
6 |
> are IMO a reasonable compromise between practicality and simplicity, but |
7 |
> getting much more complicated than that and... IMO it's better to stay |
8 |
> simple. |
9 |
|
10 |
I think that we need a simple policy like: |
11 |
Write up Changelogs for any change that impacts what gets installed on |
12 |
our user's computers. |
13 |
|
14 |
Then we can write up some guidelines about how to apply this policy in practice. |
15 |
|
16 |
I think the problem is that we're getting a bit legalistic here. I |
17 |
have no idea why we even needed the policy change. IMHO what should |
18 |
happen is: |
19 |
|
20 |
1. Dev does something significant and doesn't update a Changelog. |
21 |
2. QA or another dev calls them on it. Tells them not to do it again. |
22 |
3. Dev does it again. |
23 |
4. QA or another dev escalates to devrel. Devrel deals with the |
24 |
issue, resulting in either a dev who takes the rules more seriously or |
25 |
one less dev. |
26 |
|
27 |
What it almost sounds like to me is that step 4 is breaking down. |
28 |
Perhaps somebody is arguing "well, it isn't clear in the rules so you |
29 |
can't do anything to me." To that my only answer is "sure we can!" |
30 |
When it comes to money and taxes we need to have pretty clear rules |
31 |
for legal reasons, but when it comes down to expecting devs to be |
32 |
mature and team players, I don't think that we really need 14 appeals |
33 |
and a team of lawyers to eliminate every loophole in our policies. If |
34 |
a misunderstanding is genuine then everybody should get past it |
35 |
quickly and maybe we update the policy to be more clear. When |
36 |
policies are flaunted despite explanation, and the authority of devrel |
37 |
or QA or whatever and ultimately the council (on appeal) is |
38 |
questioned, then we're not playing like a team. It is amazing what |
39 |
intelligent people can fail to understand when getting something they |
40 |
want depends on it. |
41 |
|
42 |
More rules will never save an organization. Sometimes you need rules, |
43 |
but I think that for a group like Gentoo to work well we need to keep |
44 |
them to a minimum. "Well, that's not written in black and white so I |
45 |
won't cooperate until it is" is no reason for anybody to pause even a |
46 |
moment before escalating. Unclear policies are a reason to assume |
47 |
good intentions - not a reason to overlook obvious bad intentions. |
48 |
You can't solve a people problem with a better algorithm. |
49 |
|
50 |
Just my two cents... That, and in the big scheme of things this is a |
51 |
bit of a tempest in a teapot but I do share concerns that QA is an |
52 |
attitude and small problems today just lead to big ones tomorrow. |
53 |
|
54 |
Rich |