Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 18:02:55 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: grog@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org, phk@phk.freebsd.dk, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Apologies Message-ID: <20060522080255.GB730@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20060521.182731.74695972.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <446B8E36.8050902@elischer.org> <20060518000342.GJ61448@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20060521221556.GA97506@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20060521.182731.74695972.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 2006-May-21 18:27:31 -0600, Warner Losh wrote: >> my intention to be offensive, merely to draw attention to problems we >> have with product management. These problems remain. I suspect that the e-mail grog is apologising for should have been on a private mailing list rather than a public one. There have been a couple of cases recently where committers have attacked each other in public lists - this does not do anything to enhance an outsider's view of the Project. >The pcvt removal has been long planned. As a non-committer, the first I was aware of it was phk's mail last Wednesday (sent 3 hours before pcvt was axed). IMHO, this proposal should have been raised on -arch (and maybe -announce) with a period allowed for someone to come forward and take over (and fix) pcvt before it was axed. The ports subsystem seems to have a formal process where unloved and broken ports are explicitly flagged for deletion with a (normally) 3 month timeout for someone to step forward. Maybe something like this is needed in the base system as well. >pcvt illustrates a problem that we've had in the project where we have >too many identical ways of doing the same thing. Sometimes this >diversity is good, other times it gets in the way of project making >progres. To properly manage the project, we have to make sure that >there's a balance between these two extremes. I totally agree. My concern is the (apparent) lack of a formal process. --=20 Peter Jeremy --9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFEcXAu/opHv/APuIcRAnFEAJ4kU7CcAnxrNecxD4beuog41yrsjwCghr6O 10dVtf5l1KfVrw7wlRY2jL0= =w9Mc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060522080255.GB730>