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@riskmetrics.com wrote:
goran.hultgren@bluefish.se wrote:
Daniel Vainsencher danielv@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@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
Daniel writes:
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.
I agree with this, and it's why I abstained. (By the way, Göran, when one abstains, it's called an "abstention".)
-C
-- Craig Latta http://netjam.org/resume craig@netjam.org
Craig Latta craig.latta@netjam.org wrote:
Daniel writes:
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.
I agree with this, and it's why I abstained. (By the way, Göran, when one abstains, it's called an "abstention".)
Not to start another fruitless discussion (but that is probably exactly what I am doing), but I thought the idea of having someone as a Steward for a piece of Squeak was that the Steward had the "final saying" on that piece. You know, delegated responsibility. Otherwise the point of having Stewards seems a bit... moot.
That is also why the "trust" part is important. Of course, we could say NO, but that would probably essentially mean that we lost that Steward. And hopefully before that the arguments pro and con had time to boil down to something good. But having us say NO should be a very, very uncommon thing.
It still feels like the Steward should take the decisions - I mean, why should people otherwise be interested in being Stewards if it still means that everything needs to be crosschecked with us? The idea is to *distribute* the responsibilities but if no power of decisions comes with those responsibilities then the incentive of becoming a Steward is lost. IMHO.
Well, perhaps I have missed something here.
regards, Göran
squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Craig Latta -
Daniel Vainsencher -
goran.hultgren＠bluefish.se