[csw-maintainers] RFD: Releases and staging proposal

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi Phil,

Am 08.02.2010 um 18:39 schrieb Philip Brown:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 4:42 AM, Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> Hi James,
>> 
>> Am 08.02.2010 um 13:17 schrieb James Lee:
>>> 
>>> On 07/02/10, 20:37:01, Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> wrote
>>> 
>>>> I am not sure if I understand you correctly. Do you propose a different
>>>> naming or a different process than what was described?
>>> 
>>> I'm not making a proposal.
>> 
>> So we should stick to what we have and just drop the proposal?
> 
> maybe, maybe not.
> What does the "new" proposal fix?
> That has not been identified.
> 
> Seems to me, that should be the first thing in the proposal;
> identifying "the problem" that the proposal has been created to fix.

It says so clearly in "background":
  "The main problem is that there are currently no processes that
   might potentially lead to a stable release"

> And, as James can attest.. while it is possible to distribute SOME of
> the work out, it is not possible to perfectly or randomly distribute
> all of the job responsabilities.
> To re-use a phrase, "putting 9 women on the job, wont make a baby in 1
> month instead of 9".

To stick to your metaphor: It may not be faster, but it is much more
fun :-) And with more fun there will be more people helping getting the
job done.

>> The wiki page is a proposal and you propose a change to the proposal.
>> So how about some discussion on the matter instead of the wording?
> 
> Why are you objecting to changing the wording? whats the problem?
> He's suggested a change to the proposal. Are you only open to some
> kinds of change to it?

First it says clearly on top of the page "Status: Draft". If you want
I can add "Status: draft" under each headline to make that even clearer.
Changing the wording to something vague and changing it back later is
IMHO not helpful and btw. not how other RFCs are done (which you may or
may not find relevant for our document, as the OpenCSW-process should
be "better than RFC", right?)

> How about we first fix "the easy part" of updating the wording, and
> then move on to the more detailed, labourious parts after that?

There are two ways the document can be changed:
1. Describe the change in terms of "I propose to change the sentence
   'abc' to 'def' in paragraph 1 of section 2" and discuss it on
   maintainers@
2. Change it yourself and discuss it on maintainers@


Best regards

  -- Dago