Rockbox.org home
release
dev builds
extras
themes manual
wiki
device status forums
mailing lists
IRC bugs
patches
dev guide



Rockbox mail archive

Subject: Re: Getting agreements

Re: Getting agreements

From: Thomas Martitz <thomas.martitz_at_student.htw-berlin.de>
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 20:45:54 +0200

  On 09.10.2010 14:39, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> My suggestion for what's required to get a new feature added:
>
> Three devs (expressed) in favour (+1), and none being against (-1)
> given enough time to react (ie more than 24 hours).
>
> If there's anyone agaist it, there must be reasons specified for the
> negative vote and there should be a discussion for what's needed to
> make the veto go away.
>
> I believe this is roughly how the Apache foundation does it. If we
> want to, we can check that up more careful to see if we can adapt
> their "rules" even more verbatim.
>
> Just my idea.
>

Sounds good to me, I'd really like to see more democracy and formalism
in the decision process. Currently it's more or less up to one person
(and therefore inconsistent) when and under which circumstances (and if
it at all) a feature gets in. That could possibly scare new contributors
and developers away

OTOH, how do we tell whether a vote is needed? Some commits might seem
trivial or small enough (even if they add features) that one might think
it's not needed. And do we revert a change if we think there should be a
vote post-commit?

I also fear that it adds so much bureaucracy, that innovation is blocked
because of a tedious decision process. But I guess other projects have
shown that this is normally not the case?

Best regards.
Received on 2010-10-09


Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew
aaa