Peter Donald wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 14:45, Paul Hammant wrote:
>
>>>http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html
>>>
>>>It must be realized that CVS access is a privlidge and if you abuse it it
>>>will be revoked. I hope the people who are doing this rectify the
>>>situation before we are forced to revoke access.
>>>
>>As someone who's done a few unilateral things in the last few weeks, I
>>feel a bit nervous. I thought that, say, upgrading xerces to 2.0.2 in
>>Phoenix would be a good thing. I've also done much to many Excalibur
>>xdocs and build files facilitating the site being pushed out. It might
>>be nice to elaborate a little Peter as there surely is a cut off point
>>on changes.. ?
>>
>
>No thats all fine.
>
That's what I thought too!
>The main point is that the decision process is often
>ignored.
>
I was thinking this myself. There are times ... you know the situation
... you do something after a process of discussion, you think you have
consensus, you spend a few hours of your time putting in place something
valuable, and then out of the woodwork some
two-bit-hairy-noised-little-Hitler turns around and issues posts a -1
without any rational explanation.
Yes, Pete - I'm totally with you on this one + 365 ... one for every day
of the year - the decision process must be respected - when anyone
invokes a -1 they have to put the time and effort into providing a god
rational explination of what the issue is - even better ... to provide a
better proposal.
>Things that have been vetoed get committed and never reverted.
>
It's amazing - the same thing happened to me just this morning - someone
made a change on something someone else committed that I'm an author of
- and guess what, they haven't reverted it. What should do about this ?
I think its reasonably clear - when you got into situations like this
you need to move from confrontation into communication - its probably a
good thing to discuss the issue - try and figure out a common solution -
collaborate - but you and I both know that sometime this doesn't slide
the way you want it to. I guess that's just part of the process - go
with the flow.
>
>Unless people object to your changes I say go for it! Especially when they
>end up in better state than when you started. This is essentially Lazy
>consensus.
>
>However when people object you need to address their concerns and get them to
>agree, if that is not possible you need to revert the changes.
>
Totally with you here - it must be fate - but exactly the same thing
happened to me on exactly this point this morning (I know the level of
coincidence is amazing) - someone did something that I objected to
(something silly relating to component reuse, compatibility with earlier
releases, etc.), and guess what - I tried to address the concern, but I
haven't go an answer back yet - what should I do? Maybe I should just
revert the CVS - but this is like totally ignoring the guy - but my real
problem is that the guy isn't talking about his issues - to be frank -
he's just behaving like a PITA and I don't know what to do.
Pete - you've been playing this game longer that I have - what do you
think the best approach is in a situation like this? Should I just
ignore him and get on with what I need to do, or should I escalate the
issue?
Cheers Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
