I'd like to second Alan's comment. I like the mantra. "Rough consensus and working code."
There is always someone who wants others to preserve something they actually never use. Just because they think might want it one day. And that ignores people with toxic attitudes. On a couple of packages I worked on, I instrumented the code to log usage so that when some prima donna starting making noise about how vital some program was management could respond by saying, "But you haven't used that program in over a year and no one else has ever used it." Not suitable for an OS, but it certainly cut short a lot of pointless arguments. Reg -------------------------------------------- On Mon, 10/16/17, Alan Coopersmith <[email protected]> wrote: Subject: Re: [discuss] Where do we need innovation? To: [email protected] Date: Monday, October 16, 2017, 10:05 AM On 10/16/2017 6:07 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:> An important decision would be not to remove programs or features if even just > a single person mentions a veto. Also no code should be added that did not get > a code review, or if even just a single person mentions a veto. Giving everyone the ability to veto anything sounds like a sure way to hold the entire project hostage to the most disagreeable or toxic person, and to greatly accelerate the speed at which people give up and leave the project in droves. There's been a lot written and presented in recent years on effective open source project management to avoid burnout and poisonous people - projects should learn from all the mistakes of others, not repeat the worst ones. -alan- ------------------------------------------ illumos-discuss Archives: https://illumos.topicbox.com/groups/discuss/discussions/T6d77d259b44ec8df-Mfc840bb8bf27c3cd6cc15926 Powered by Topicbox: https://topicbox.com
