Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: better policy for ChageLogs

[Dale]

Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> I think that we need a simple policy like:
> Write up Changelogs for any change that impacts what gets installed on
> our user's computers.
>
> Then we can write up some guidelines about how to apply this policy in practice.
>
> I think the problem is that we're getting a bit legalistic here.  I
> have no idea why we even needed the policy change.  IMHO what should
> happen is:
>
> 1.  Dev does something significant and doesn't update a Changelog.
> 2.  QA or another dev calls them on it.  Tells them not to do it again.
> 3.  Dev does it again.
> 4.  QA or another dev escalates to devrel.  Devrel deals with the
> issue, resulting in either a dev who takes the rules more seriously or
> one less dev.
>
> What it almost sounds like to me is that step 4 is breaking down.
> Perhaps somebody is arguing "well, it isn't clear in the rules so you
> can't do anything to me."  To that my only answer is "sure we can!"
> When it comes to money and taxes we need to have pretty clear rules
> for legal reasons, but when it comes down to expecting devs to be
> mature and team players, I don't think that we really need 14 appeals
> and a team of lawyers to eliminate every loophole in our policies.  If
> a misunderstanding is genuine then everybody should get past it
> quickly and maybe we update the policy to be more clear.  When
> policies are flaunted despite explanation, and the authority of devrel
> or QA or whatever and ultimately the council (on appeal) is
> questioned, then we're not playing like a team.  It is amazing what
> intelligent people can fail to understand when getting something they
> want depends on it.
>
> More rules will never save an organization.  Sometimes you need rules,
> but I think that for a group like Gentoo to work well we need to keep
> them to a minimum.  "Well, that's not written in black and white so I
> won't cooperate until it is" is no reason for anybody to pause even a
> moment before escalating.  Unclear policies are a reason to assume
> good intentions - not a reason to overlook obvious bad intentions.
> You can't solve a people problem with a better algorithm.
>
> Just my two cents...  That, and in the big scheme of things this is a
> bit of a tempest in a teapot but I do share concerns that QA is an
> attitude and small problems today just lead to big ones tomorrow.
>
> Rich
>
>

I'm not a dev, just a user but I do follow this list and read most 
things posted here.

The point of the discussion is this.  Someone didn't log something that 
should have been logged.  Even after it was posted that the change is 
supposed to be logged, the person that didn't think he should log it 
said the rules didn't say he had to log it.  So, it appears that #1, #2 
happened but the rules wasn't clear enough so it was changed.

I think the point of the discussion is this.  The rules wasn't clear 
enough so they were changed to be much clearer.  From my understanding, 
the NEW rules say if you touch it, log it.  Thing is, that seemed to 
have went to far.  So, round two is to smooth out the edges and get it 
back to what it was except in writing this time.  That way, if this 
happens again, another dev, user, devrel or whatever can point to the 
rules and settle the argument quickly.

It would be nice if when this originally started, the reply would have 
been "sorry, I didn't realize.  It won't happen again".  That could have 
been the end of it and it would have ended loooooong ago.  :-)

I do agree with your post tho.  Sometimes you etch something in stone 
then realize you misspelled the thing.

Dale

:-)  :-)