That is a much better point than I was able to come up with. Thanks Daniel! :D
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Sep 10, 2012, at 12:32 PM, Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com> wrote: > > >> The main "Red Flag" to me was the line: > >> > >> AGREED: continue using waf to build rpm package (jlkinsel, 17:24:57) > >> > >> As soon as I saw "AGREED", a little red flag popped up in my head > wondering > >> if a decision had been made on IRC that should have been done on the > list. I > >> believe this had been discussed to death on the list already (need to > double > >> check, very busy list) and a quick link to show that would definitely > been > >> helpful. > > > > That's a really good point. Here the agreement was that waf is the > temporary solution to continue to use to get 4.0 release out. It's not an > agreement on long term direction of CloudStack. Does it still count as a > decision? I mean there's tons of these types of "decisions" made during > the IRC? For example, who's going to help with what work. Todo lists > being generated. Etc. Do these all count as decisions? > > > As Noah stated, it's kind of a gray area and is something you'll likely > need to adjust as you move forward, learn what works and doesn't, etc… A > lot of it can depend exactly on how it's presented in the minutes/log. If > it was presented more like: > > No one present has time to look at other options for RPM packaging right > now so planning on sticking with waf for now. > > then it wouldn't have raised any red flags to me at all. That shows that > its more of a "remain status quo" for now, but also allows others that were > not on the irc chat to say "hey, I have some time, can I help out with > that" or something. Keeps the door open. The "AGREED" wording just > seems to imply "we're doing this, discussion closed" type thing which > really isn't the case. > > > -- > Daniel Kulp > dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > > -- NS
