[Squeakfoundation] Decision time: Are SCG the steward of thekernel as proposed?

[Daniel Vainsencher]

To add another reason againt a vote on this (not that I care very
strongly): I didn't see a need for it because I think we can send the
right message without providing an official moment of decision - after
all, people do take their risks whatever we might decide, even
officially. 

If SCG fubars it, we won't merge their stuff. If they bring us good
patches (the much more likely outcome), we'll merge them whether they
have any "officially decided" status or not. Just remember this - once
we've made decisions on a topic, we'll always be making decisions on
that topic (paraphrasing Frank Herbert, in one of the Dune books). IMHO,
giving advice is worth doing permanently, giving official badges isn't.

Daniel

Doug Way <dway at riskmetrics.com> wrote:
> 
> goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> > 
> > Daniel Vainsencher <danielv at netvision.net.il> wrote:
> > > I don't know if votes are that important (in the absence of any dissent,
> > > at least), but yes anyway.
> > 
> > I looked up the word "dissent" but could still not really figure out
> > what you mean.
> 
> Dissent meaning "opposition" or "disagreement".  I think he meant that since
> nobody strongly objected (on squeak-dev or here) to the idea of SCG becoming
> stewards of the kernel, in that sense maybe we didn't really need to vote on
> it.
> 
> But I agree that an official vote is good for this type of important decision.
> 
> - Doug Way
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation