Re: Suggestion: Time limit for NM process
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 02:48:26PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2006, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > > Rule #1 of FLOSS: If you like to see something change/being done,
> > > implement it yourself.
> > > Show that your code/implementation works by running it in parallel to
> > > the current stuff (if available) and then submit it.
> > So, your recommendation is to implement a parallel NM process to the
> > existing one and prove that it is better? I doubt that it would make *any*
> > sense when the DAMs won't accept the outcome of that process and this is
> > *very* unlikely. :)
> Well, that's almost how this NM process started ... the DAM did say "we
> don't process NM anymore, it's too complicated, we're overwhelmed". And
> then some DD decided to not let contributors on the side and we decided to
> "sponsor" them and later on we wuilt on that process to create the
> current process.
You're pointing out something important: changes can only be made by DDs. If
no DD is feeling like something should be improved, whereas NMs are upcoming
with ideas, nothing will change. Not really surprising, though. ;)
> I'm not advocating to create parallel NM process in this case, because the
> people handling it are open to suggestions and patches.
Thijs pointed out that this isn't the case. Although many ideas brought up,
those were put down in a harsh manner. I just pointed out that this is not
only true for this area, but for the whole project.
> Michael was simply pointing out that your generalization of the probem
> diiverted from the specific problem that we're trying to handle here...
> and as such the "generic" discussion should be moved somewhere else.
Anyway, Michael and you are showing exactly what the problem is: instead of
coming up with own ideas how to improve the NM process in this discussion,
you're discussing about the right place of a meta-discussion instead of
taking arguments from the prior posts and see what you can do about that.
For example:
Thijs said: ideas are often put down with "not possible".
I agreed with him and expanded the critics to the whole project.
You're saying we should move to -project, but don't come up with ideas how
to improve the situation *here*.
IMHO, it's not wrong to point out that problems are generic and not only
related to a specific subproject. That doesn't mean you can only solve the
problem as a whole, but it's more like acknowledging "yeah, it's a generic
problem, but we can start to solve here in this subproject first".
Start with the first step, when you want to win a marathon.
Moving to -project would mean something like trying to win a marathon
without being trained.
So, what are *your* ideas to improve the NM process then? :-)
--
Ciao... // Fon: 0381-2744150
Ingo \X/ SIP: 2744150@sipgate.de
gpg pubkey: http://www.juergensmann.de/ij/public_key.asc
Reply to: