On Tue, 2003-05-06 at 13:48, Andreas Raab wrote:
> Finally (because I'm just at some larger issues) consider dropping the
> "micro management" approach for larger projects. This just won't work. 

Hear, hear. We're in alpha mode. We're spending more time on discussing
stuff to include than writing stuff to include. My take: if a project
team, like KCP or MCP, says 'we want to do X' and the community says
'good idea, go ahead', you should give them the chance to prove
themselves and just accept whatever they offer. It's much cheaper to
roll back in the unlikely case of bad work than it is to protect (who?)
against (what?) in a bleeding edge image. 

Code reviews are good when you're doing nuclear plants, but we might be
exaggerating here. Especially when it leads to frustration with people
spending time on projects the community agreed are necessary. 

I vote to give Diego and Stephane write access to the update stream for
their projects for the coming two months or so. By then, we will know
whether it's a good idea or not and we can decide to revoke the access
for the process of moving to stabler code or not.




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20030507/2139375d/attachment.pgp