[csw-maintainers] amendments and issues with recent prop

[Jonathan Craig]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Jonathan Craig <jcraig at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> wrote:
>
> How does the adjusted vote, as I proposed, impeed "progress"?
> It seems as though the mechanisms, while nearly completely, still have
> a week or two worth of tweaks to make it fully live(?)
> During that time, we could discuss, in parallel, what kind of reviews
> other people may want.
> Or, if no-one else voted for the reviews. just have peace and quiet :)

If you split the vote across a number of choices then we will end up
with no clear direction.  Your trying to ride the coattails of the
automated release proposal and unfairly disrupting that decision.  You
need to get out of the way of the first proposal and begin work on
your own proposal.  If you had done this to begin with you wouldn't
have lost the last week to arguments with the automated release
process.

>
>
>> Phil, I would suggest you write up a proposal to cover the review
>> process as you see fit.  Please remember it will be voted upon by a
>> broad audience and therefore must meet that audiences needs and
>> desires.
>
> I am not entirely sure what the audience's "needs and desires" are at this
> point. I'm hoping that if a vote shows interest in the reviews, that others
> among the "more active" folks, would then be motivated to chime in
> and help shape what it would look like.
> Without the vote of interest *first*, though, I dont think the discussion
> would be nearly as productive.

No reason to turn a formal vote on the release process into a straw
vote into the interest others may share with you in a review process.
If your looking to determine interest in a review process then I
suggest your start a new thread and pose that question to the
maintainers.  The sooner you do this the sooner you will have your
answer.

At this time nobody, beyond you, has voiced interest in inserting a
peer review step into the release proposal, especially if the review
process is largely undefined.  The only definition I have seen from
you is that a "group" will "take a look at" packages and "discuss"
whether to "allow" the package to release.  How's the group formed,
what specifically will they do as part of a review, how are the
results of the review going to be used.  The process needs to be
deterministic and as free from subjective standards as possible.  Look
less to controlling unruly/uninformed maintainers and more towards
using the results of review to inform the standards process, improve
maintainer documentation and the future development of automated
checks.