[csw-maintainers] [POLICY] Policy-team, policy docs, licenses

[Philip Brown]

2011/2/11 Maciej Bliziński <maciej at opencsw.org>:
> 2011/2/10 Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com>:
>
>>
>> It's not "clearly" anything of the sort. I'm only  proposing that we
>> keep things as simple as possible.
>
> Simple, in what sense?

The policy.

no one said policy *making* was simple (in any context, whether in
opencsw, or elsewhere).
The goal should be a simple, easy to read and understand _policy_, not
ease of creating new policies.
In the same way that our overall goals should be to provide a simple
easy to use experience for the _user_, not "to make maintainers lives
easier".
Quality of end product should come first. ease of production, second.


> 2011-02-06 12:27 Maciej sends the first revision of the patch sent out [1]
> 2011-02-06 12:54 Peter F sends a review with a suggestion [2]
> 2011-02-06 13:23 Maciej sends the second revision [3]
> 2011-02-09 00:12 Maciej asks for feedback [4]
> 2011-02-09 05:48 Phil sends a disapproving review [5]
> 2011-02-09 09:25 Peter F confirms his approval [6]
>
> It took Peter F and me one hour to prepare a reviewed and revised
> change.  5 days later, after exchanging many e-mails, the patch has
> neither Phil's approval nor a concrete, constructive review (see [2]
> for an example of such review) from him.

I thought what I said was fairly concrete, in that I dont think we
need an abstract, or a license.
And if we DO set down a license, we need to have a vote on it (becuase
it will affect ALL of our documentation, for all time. Having you just
decide on one, and having a quickie little "verbal" agreement on the
mailing list, seems grossly inappropriate for such a scope)
And before that, to have a fair vote, first evaluate all the choices
and provide a proper comparison to voters...
Now that, is the opposite of simple.
Nor is this me being "obstructionist" or other garbage: this is me
pointing out **the proper way to do things**, in any real life
business organization, particularly a supposedly democratically
founded one.

Ironically, it's "The Secretary"  who should be pushing for proper
protocol and procedure in this kind of proceeding.


> The license is necessary, isn't it?

I personally dont think so.

> We could remove the abstract, if
> it makes things easier.

Sounds good to me.