Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Getting agreements
Re: Getting agreements
From: Paul Louden <paulthenerd_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 10:15:03 -0500
On 10/9/2010 7:39 AM, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> 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 second this. +3 sounds about right (maybe only +2, depending on
whether you're counting the person proposing it or not, basically "get
two other devs speaking in favor of your idea with none objecting").
In terms of objections, thought, you also need to be careful. With
"reasons specified for the negative vote" then you'll just get into an
argument over whether the reasons specified are valid or not. Is "this
feature could be implemented better, and if it goes in this way, it will
never be reimplemented as the better way" a valid reason? Some would say
"yes, if we know a better way, we should use the other way." Others
would say "no, someone else can reimplement it, but it's good enough
that we should get it to users now" and you have another circular argument.
If people can be for an idea because "I like it" then people should be
allowed to be against an idea because "I don't feel it's right for
Rockbox" without any more objective reason for not including it than the
other side has for wanting to include it. That being said, if an
objector wishes to state their reasons as an opening for the other side
to win them over / remove their veto, it's fine. I think *most* of the
time, people are going to object to things for specific perceived
problems with it. And the times when someone just thinks "this does not
belong, period" if it really does benefit the project there will be
enough in favor of it that it won't matter that one or two people have
their heels dug in over it.
Received on 2010-10-09