At 05:28 PM 11/16/2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 04:08:20PM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote: >> slowdown of activity in the httpd project. One proposal that was made >> would be to adopt a lazy consensus rule. Basically what this means is >> that when a backport is proposed in the STATUS file, after a period of >> time and if the proposal has not recieved any 0 or -1 votes, it would >> automatically be approved for backport by lazy consensus. The purpose >> for this proposal is to avoid stagnation of backport proposals in the >> STATUS file simply due to the lack of votes. > >-1 (vote, not veto). > >I think this is a bad idea and would make stable turn into CTR.
Let me make certain this is clear - it is REVIEW then commit, however, if nobody else cares to voice an objection after notice of intent to commit code, then the contributor wouldn't have obstacles. >And, that, I believe jeopardizes the overall quality of the code. >And, I'm not willing to take that risk. I entirely agree - stability of the already-done version 2.0 is paramount to me. However we need to make some edge case expections for that code which only one or two voulenteers are familiar with. e.g. Win32 service code is only known by 4 members, Novell by only one, and ldap only three of us ever pay attention. 'Platform maintainers' should have some way to get measurable and tested code improvements back into 2.0. Bill
