On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:51:11PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes:
I'll only address "meta-discussion" points here. > > What about the next one? Phil has been learning how to do it, and I > > certainly won't call *him* a trained monkey... but his expertise is > > documentation and build systems. > > So you want to design a rule set that will let him do good work without > feedback? Without consulting anybody? Without trying to form a > judgment? Do you really think that after all this time he can't do a > better job than a switchboard? ... I think the monkey analogy has been taken too far, and it is veering uncomfortably close towards personal attacks. I apologize for my previous use of that analogy. As for a "simple rule set" -- yes, the original intent was to have a sufficiently simple rule-set that nobody would feel intimidated by it. I have been trying to get other people to handle releases for ages. This involves hard technical challenges (dealing with GUB, although I've tried to keep this as simple as possible there's still a lot of difficulties there), and potentially-vague release policies. I tried to keep those policies as unambiguous as possible. I took exactly the same approach to the Bug Squad. Not enough volunteers? try to make the job as simple as possible. > > I evidently wasn't clear in introducing GOP and their policies; a > > complete rejection of any proposal is certainly valid! The GOP > > proposals are intended to begin debate, not end them. > > What if they make one feel that one does not even know how to start? Since the idea is to facilitate discussion, that is enough feedback. A simple one-line "what's the point of this?" or "what exactly are you suggesting" or just "I don't understand". In my mind, that should trigger an automatic re-think / re-write of the proposal. - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
