| 1 |
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 7/08/2013 22:41, hasufell wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> You are a bug wrangler and should have the |
| 5 |
>> authority to mess with anything in bugzilla. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Don't forget that anybody can start a project, even if it conflicts with |
| 8 |
> other projects. While Jeroen's experience certainly gives him a more insight |
| 9 |
> regarding bugzilla issues, making anyone the ultimate authority on anything |
| 10 |
> does not fit in with our current metastructure. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Having two bug wrangler projects whose main function ends up being |
| 13 |
fighting revert wars over subject line formatting and writing policies |
| 14 |
denouncing the other project is counter-productive. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
If you have strong feelings and want to contribute to how bugs are |
| 17 |
managed, join the bug wranglers. The bug wranglers project does need |
| 18 |
to hold elections for leads per the policy you just cited. It is |
| 19 |
better for people to first try to work together before they just dig |
| 20 |
in and start fighting each other. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
If things are out of hand ask the Council to step in. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
My two cents - I think that what Jer is doing is mostly a value-add. |
| 25 |
I wouldn't go changing subject lines to just remove a period, but more |
| 26 |
substantive edits should be welcome if it improves consistency. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
It might be nice if we could somehow flag such revisions so that |
| 29 |
emails are either suppressed or marked as trivial edits, so that |
| 30 |
everybody could filter their bugspam accordingly. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Don't get me wrong - I like GLEP 39 and the idea of allowing |
| 33 |
"competing projects." However, the intent of that wasn't really to |
| 34 |
endorse wars over things that are basically indivisible, like |
| 35 |
bugzilla. If you wanted to start up your own alternative next-gen |
| 36 |
bugzilla go ahead, though the distro should probably treat it like an |
| 37 |
experiment until it is ready to go. OpenRC is an example of where |
| 38 |
starting over was a big improvement. However, the point is that we |
| 39 |
didn't have two projects fighting over commits to baselayout-1 - we |
| 40 |
recognized the opportunities of starting over. Also, starting over |
| 41 |
simply to avoid the need to cooperate is dumb - it might not be |
| 42 |
forbidden, but it is dumb. When we start something over it should be |
| 43 |
because it just makes sense to do it that way. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Rich |
Archives