On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Jason Reethisma <[email protected]>wrote:
> @Russell > > "can't compel anyone to do anything"... you can compel people to NOT do > something, such as, "don't close a ticket as won't-fix without giving a > detailed explanation of why it should be closed". > > Saying that people cannot be compelled is an excuse to not take action. > My apologies if I wasn't clear - that wasn't what I was saying at all. What I meant is that we can't institute a process like "Every core developer must spend 4 hours per week triaging tickets or they will lose their core developer status". This would be a completely reasonable course of action if you were a paid employee -- your employer is just telling you what you have to do to get paid -- but that dynamic doesn't exist in a volunteer project. In a volunteer project the only reason the "hard" stuff gets done is because people volunteer to do it. However, in this case, Jacob *did* give a detailed explanation: "This seems like a needless function; it's already possible to just re-look-up the object from the database." It was rejected because the need wasn't clear. Simon then reopened the ticket, and gave a detailed use case, to which Jacob responded: "I'm really not convinced by Simon's use case -- adding "reload()" only saves you a single line of code. Let's do our best to keep Django as svelte as possible." What more detail should Jacob have provided? The feature isn't that complex. It's not like he's got an opportunity to present a PhD thesis in relational algebra. It's a simple feature, which has been rejected because in Jacob's opinion, it can be achieved in other ways. Jacob didn't explicitly call for a discussion on the mailing list. Perhaps he should have. However, when the ticket was reopened for the second time, James Bennett (ubernostrum) pointed at project policy to have these discussions on the mailing list. What should James have done instead? Ignoring the 3 outlined problems in the post you replied to while > pretending to ask for suggestions from the community is just a form of > equivocation. Politicians do it all the time... Sure, but Wim highlighted problems - he didn't suggest solutions. I agree that in this example, and in some others, the three problems described by Wim exist. The core team has implemented a process that we think works. It has changed over time, and is something that we feel is practical to implement, and achieves the goals we're aiming to achieve. However, it's clearly failing in some respects. We need the community to guides us on the *concrete* improvements we can make. This isn't political equivocating. Its a genuine call to the community to tell us how we can make things better. Yours, Russ Magee %-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
