[csw-maintainers] Our core values: providing straightforward experience to the user

[Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski]

No dia 19 de Novembro de 2010 17:34, Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> escreveu:
> On 11/19/10, Peter FELECAN <pfelecan at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> writes:
>>...
>>> So let me share more detail of my experience, and how that benefits my
>>> position of release manager.
>>
>> Well, nobody said that your contribution [as release manager] to the community is not
>> valuable.

That's not what Peter said.  It's a good thing you've inserted the bit
in brackets, I can see now how you understood it.  I don't think this
is how Peter meant it.

I think that he meant that your valuable contributions to the
community might not be about stopping packages from entering the
catalog - something that you seem to believe is the primary function
of the release manager.

For example, package consulting is hugely important.  Dissecting a
package, analyzing the contents, looking direct problems and potential
problems, and providing feedback, is an immensely valuable activity.

> Choosing the option of "no human release manager", is saying exactly that.
> (if one presumes that people are choosing that option, with the
> assumption that quality of packages will not suffer as a result)

No human release manager means that there is no single person in
power.  It does not mean that packages aren't examined by a human.
The difference is that in the consensus model, the person who takes
the time to examine packages, is a voice in discussion rather than an
authority.  If the issue raised is, for example, of an aesthetic
nature, it will be resolved by consensus.

> It would in some ways bother me more, if a majority of maintainers
> voted for "no human release manager", and believed in their hearts,
> "yes, quality of packages WILL suffer, but I dont care, i just want
> life easier for myself"
> If the majority of voting members no longer care about package quality
> as paramount importance,

I don't believe that package quality alone should be the gating
factor.  It's not part of our core value is providing straightforward
experience for the user, and having packages in the first place can be
more important.  Presented with a dilemma of a slightly flawed package
versus no package at all, I would go for the imperfect package option.
 It could at least work for some users.

> that would be a sign that opencsw has become
> an organization I would no longer wish to be a part of, or even use
> products from.

What do you want to achieve by saying this?