andreas.raab at gmx.de
Sun Jan 22 20:17:17 UTC 2006
stéphane ducasse wrote:
> The same that was in 3.6, 3.7, 3.8.
Which, like I said, is equally bad in this regard.
> We proposed a list of points that we would work on and waited for
Sure. I didn't say there was no feedback, I said there was no
transparent decision process. Or put differently, once you had that
feedback, who made the decision to include those points and not others
in the 3.9a list? To choose X over Y? Based on which authority did that
person or group make the decision? And (arguably) most importantly (at
least to avoid endless discussions) is there any kind of documentation
(links to email threads for example) about the discussion and the decision?
This whole discussion started by an accusation that soms people drive
only their personal agenda - and the best to contradict this is to point
to the decision process and say "look, here is where discussed this,
here is vote/decision process, this is the result and it's explicity
documented here for people just like you who don't read Squeak-dev daily
and have not been following the discussion closely".
> At least contrary to before, the list was explicit.
The previous versions were actually no less explicit if you go over the
mailing list archives but they were not as well documented so I see that
as a definitive improvement.
More information about the Squeak-dev