On Monday, April 14, 2003, at 12:11 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:

>>> Speaking for myself (as always ;-) it's the cycle of
>>> 3.4/3.5 and the general inclinations showing from the
>>> guides that make me raise these points. I
>>
>> Could you elaborate on the inclination bit?
>
> Oh, I just have the impression that the Guides are a little more
> cautios/conservative than SqC used to be and in this light the forked 
> update
> stream doesn't make as much sense at it used to do. In the SqC days we 
> were
> just always driving aggressively forward and for people who didn't 
> want this
> aggressive progress it made sense to navigate them into a "safe 
> heaven" by
> providing a separate update stream. But from seeing the length of
> discussions, reviews, etc. that's going on right now it seems that the
> advantages of the forked update stream simply don't apply anymore.

The Guides may seem a little bit more cautious/conservative than 
intended, partly just because the harvesting process still isn't quite 
as up to speed as I'd like it to be.  (The new process via the sqfixes 
page is good, but we need more active harvesting from the current 
harvesters (which I need to coordinate better), and probably we need a 
few more harvesting volunteers too.)

Also, in some cases if the Guides are still discussing what to do about 
something, in the meantime no action will be taken on it.  For example, 
I don't want to incorporate the first KCP fix which Daniel approved 
just yet, because we're still talking about whether we want to 
incorporate all the package removals first, and then work on 
MCP/KCP/bigger harvesting items after that. (see 3.6 rough plan thread)

As we work these things out, hopefully we won't need to be quite as 
cautious.

- Doug Way