Rockbox mail archiveSubject: 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
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?
Received on 2010-10-09