On April 20, 2004 08:04 am, Kip Hampton wrote: > 1) What happens if the current Pumpking can't or won't fulfil their duties?
I think this is an instance where it's discussed & voted upon in -devel. Maybe have it so if the Pumpking drops off the face of the earth, gets hit by a bus, a meteorite, a job or so on, a majority vote could assign an interim Pumpking to take over the RP in their absense. Or the Pumpking could identify a substitute 'till they get back, or if they realize they don't have the management skills necessary to finish the release. > 2) Is charging a Pumpking with ownership of a full set of subversion > releases *still* too much? Should we do new RPs for each microversion > instead? Maybe a "keep releasing until all items on the RP are > completed, regardless of version numbers" approach would work better? I think the RPs should indicate features that are to be added, and discussion can be used to determine if the changes are sufficient to necessitate a bump in the major version number. Instead of being "Version" driven, I think we should be "Feature" driven. That being said, if a person wants to suggest an RP for a full major version, then they should be welcome to do so. > In any case, it looks like we have a general consensus w.r.t. to that > project guidelines doc and we should probably push forward with the TLP > proposal (if you have thoughts to the contrary, speak up now). I'm still +1.
