On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 9:02 PM Gregory Nutt <spudan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > But the #1 most critical thing facing this project is adopting even > > just the requirements for the workflow. None of the other issues have > > any significant importance > > > > So I have to be opposed to any obstacles that jeopardize or distract > > from the #1 priority thing. > > One of the dangers of delaying the workflow requirements is that there > are people actually developing workflow components now ... WITHOUT any > requirements!!! Pull unadulterated rogue behavior. There is a great risk > of just have some workflow foisted upon us with no ability by the PPMC > to guide or monitor. > > We will be giving away our right to define the workflow it we do not > make progress on the workflow requirements. Yet another rogue workflow > will be forced on us. > > I think we must decline any attempts to do commit unapproved workflow > components. We must not allow any workflow to be put into place without > the concurrence of the PPMC. We give our concurrence only by agreeing > to a set of workflow requirements then enforcing those requirements. I agree. Yesterday I wrote a detailed email giving the exact outline of what needs to be in that workflow document. Do we really have no volunteers to bang out even a rough draft of that document? The danger of what is happening now is that it will become grandfathered in with no proper workflow in place, no proper criteria for processing changes, and no clear documentation that helps committers or the public to contribute. What do we have to do? A PMC vote to put a halt and finish the workflow? Nathan
