On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > The current "every change" policy goes overboard, I doubt anyone > disagrees, but it's worth repeating the point someone else made already, > every added exception makes the rule harder to remember. The four > numbered exceptions (plus my proposed exception to the exception) above > are IMO a reasonable compromise between practicality and simplicity, but > getting much more complicated than that and... IMO it's better to stay > simple.
I think that we need a simple policy like: Write up Changelogs for any change that impacts what gets installed on our user's computers. Then we can write up some guidelines about how to apply this policy in practice. I think the problem is that we're getting a bit legalistic here. I have no idea why we even needed the policy change. IMHO what should happen is: 1. Dev does something significant and doesn't update a Changelog. 2. QA or another dev calls them on it. Tells them not to do it again. 3. Dev does it again. 4. QA or another dev escalates to devrel. Devrel deals with the issue, resulting in either a dev who takes the rules more seriously or one less dev. What it almost sounds like to me is that step 4 is breaking down. Perhaps somebody is arguing "well, it isn't clear in the rules so you can't do anything to me." To that my only answer is "sure we can!" When it comes to money and taxes we need to have pretty clear rules for legal reasons, but when it comes down to expecting devs to be mature and team players, I don't think that we really need 14 appeals and a team of lawyers to eliminate every loophole in our policies. If a misunderstanding is genuine then everybody should get past it quickly and maybe we update the policy to be more clear. When policies are flaunted despite explanation, and the authority of devrel or QA or whatever and ultimately the council (on appeal) is questioned, then we're not playing like a team. It is amazing what intelligent people can fail to understand when getting something they want depends on it. More rules will never save an organization. Sometimes you need rules, but I think that for a group like Gentoo to work well we need to keep them to a minimum. "Well, that's not written in black and white so I won't cooperate until it is" is no reason for anybody to pause even a moment before escalating. Unclear policies are a reason to assume good intentions - not a reason to overlook obvious bad intentions. You can't solve a people problem with a better algorithm. Just my two cents... That, and in the big scheme of things this is a bit of a tempest in a teapot but I do share concerns that QA is an attitude and small problems today just lead to big ones tomorrow. Rich
