| 1 |
On 20:08 Fri 28 Jan , Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 01/28/2011 04:19 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 10:31 Wed 26 Jan , Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On 01/26/2011 10:19 AM, Torsten Veller wrote: |
| 5 |
> >>> I also see the downside of the GLEP process: If you run "Developer |
| 6 |
> >>> Relations" - a project not being backed up by a GLEP - you can |
| 7 |
> >>> change the policy as you like and don't have to ask for feedback |
| 8 |
> >>> from the community at all [1]. |
| 9 |
> >> |
| 10 |
> >> That document was eventually approved by the council and I don't plan |
| 11 |
> >> on doing major modifications on my own. But there's a good point here |
| 12 |
> >> in that it's probably a good idea to turn that document into a GLEP. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > Although I agree that community input can be helpful and it's good to |
| 15 |
> > allow for it, I don't think it is the council's place to regulate the |
| 16 |
> > details of every project. We should give teams the independence and |
| 17 |
> > autonomy to do as we see fit — we aren't parents of 2-year-old children. |
| 18 |
> > (Well, I am, but she isn't yet using Gentoo.) |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Not every project but here we are talking about projects that have |
| 22 |
> direct influence over other projects (QA, DevRel) which is normally |
| 23 |
> reserved only for the council. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
That's called delegation. =) Still micromanagement is a problem and not |
| 26 |
a benefit. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Thanks, |
| 30 |
Donnie |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Donnie Berkholz |
| 33 |
Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux |
| 34 |
Blog: http://dberkholz.com |
Archives