Hello! Vagrant Cascadian <[email protected]> writes:
> To this end, I would like to propose that concerns are (eventually) > raised as pull requests, patches or issues in some formalized process. > > I think this might make it possible to focus more on the specifics and a > bit less on free-form dialogue... although free-form dialogue is an > important part of the process, I think it does a poor job of tracking > significant concerns which may get lost in the sheer quantity and volume > of a discussion. > > I hope having formal pull requests would direct towards solving problems > rather than simply talking about them, or in the worst case, blaming the > messenger, which we really, really ought to avoid. I think this is a great idea. I believe this could reduce the frustration from an "unexpected" outcome. For example, a requisite for "disapproving" (rejecting?) could be to have 1 standing issue/pull request which has not been closed. That would make it very clear for everyone that the GCD is not ready as long as there are standing issues/pulls. One of the stronger points of this approach is that it would facilitate knowing what everyone wants, and if their requests have been addressed; leaving less room for nonconstructive proposals as their stance would be clearly organized for everyone to see, and maybe rejected, if it's deemed nonconstructive or bad-faith. Best regards, -- Sergio
