Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 18:55:30 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Fumerola <billf@jade.chc-chimes.com> To: Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk> Cc: "'Mike Smith'" <mike@smith.net.au>, committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: sysctl descriptions Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990110185130.1872A-100000@jade.chc-chimes.com> In-Reply-To: <E40CBF0361C7D111914000C0F0303D108864@OCTOPUS>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 10 Jan 1999, Paul Richards wrote: > > A formal voting scheme would have (MHO) too much overhead, and would > > likely just slow us down. I think we all like the "rough > > consensus and > > working code" philosohpy, and I feel strongly that it's a > > critical part > > of what makes working for this project so worthwhile. > > This is actually how the Apache project works, all patches have to be > formally voted. Personally I found it very stifling, you lost a lot of > momentum while patches get backed up in the voting process. It's > probably the most used piece of OSS software that exists though so there > might be a lesson there :-) My intent wasn't that every patch was voted on, we're too big for that. I'd hate for the process to get as anal as a certain other project I can think of. The routing admins on EfNet have a 'Call To Vote' procedure, so people can call a vote when they think it's needed. CVS isn't going to know/care what the results are, but at least a (public) formal process by which controversial issues can be resolved might ease some people. Just ideas.. - bill fumerola - billf@chc-chimes.com - BF1560 - computer horizons corp - - ph:(800) 252-2421 - bfumerol@computerhorizons.com - billf@FreeBSD.org - To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.990110185130.1872A-100000>