On 12-Nov-09, at 4:30 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:

> Resurrecting the topic.
> Guys, is there anyone else has to say something about it?
>
> Or we should consider that discussion is closed?
> Given the often opposite opinions, i think it would be really hard to
> distill & build some formal statements on top of that..
> Or maybe i'm wrong, and we got a consensus here?

I don't have much to add to the discussion, but if you, as a board  
member, want feedback from the community, perhaps my two bits are  
relevant. :-)

I'm happy with the new development model. I find it much easier to  
contribute to the trunk than to the new process that the release team  
was developing. I know that Keith has explained how the process worked  
numerous times, on this list and elsewhere, but I could never  
understand it. The trunk process is easy to understand, easy to  
participate in and easy to observe.

As for the issue of governance, I have no problem with the way this  
decision was made and carried out. Sure, the board could have been  
more diplomatic. At the end of the day, though, they were rejecting  
somebody's work, and I doubt that any amount of diplomacy could have  
made that go over well. I don't see any need to impose additional  
rules or restrictions on what the board can do. The existing system of  
governance works fine.

Finally, a hat tip to Andreas, for his leadership in the trunk  
process. He's been in there reviewing inbox submissions, provoking  
discussion and channelling people's enthusiasm into real progress.  
Without him, the trunk would have gone nowhere. Well done.

Colin