It is the unilateral determination of what is bike-shedding and when CTR is appropriate that I object to.
I agree with Shane on the way forward. I don't believe this action is something to simply suck up and ignore as if it didn't happen. I don't see a veto anywhere. If we've been voting you've trampled over a lot of +1's here. Cut it out. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Rob Weir [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 08:53 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal]) On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > -1 > > Hey, a terrific blow for community there, Rob! > > Please don't ever do that again for a matter under active discussion. Not > ever. > > I urge you to revert those changes. > I disagree. Bikeshedding on the list is not an impediment to action. I implemented one of the proposals discussed on the list. It is in SVN. If someone feels strongly, they can revert. But note that in CTR, -1's are invalid unless accompanied by technical objections, a statement of an alternative proposal and a willingness to implement the alternative. > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 07:57 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal]) > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Nóirín Plunkett <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> The range of contributors to the website is identical to the range of >>> contributors to the wiki. The only difference is in the wiki case >>> they need to take the additional step to sign up for an account on the >>> wiki. In other case they merely submit a patch to the mailing list >>> they are already subscribed to. So in terms of effort, the patch >>> route is simpler for the contributor. >> >> I'm not sure on what basis you make any of those assertions; I >> certainly disagree. >> >> There's a qualitative difference between submitting a patch that >> someone else has to apply, and having the power to make a change >> without having to wait for someone else to get to their mail and say >> it's ok. >> >> And, while you could argue either way as to how big the difference is >> for a single patch, once you get into multiple patches, it seems clear >> to me that the wiki route is simpler for the contributor. >> > > Well, after a couple days of discussion, I've seen no one step up and > make these simple additions to the wiki. So whatever "power" the wiki > has, it seems hypothetical at this point. > > I've gone ahead and made the simple addition to the web site. The > power of CMS is reaffirmed: > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html > > If someone eventually does decide that it is worth their time to add a > treatment of this topic to the wiki, I'd be happy to add a link to it > from that web page, per Simon's suggestion. But I still think this > works far better as a folksonomy rather than a curated taxonomy. > Whether it is done on the website or the wiki is really not very > important. But I think that attempts to enforce a a designed taxonomy > will be futile. Better to set general guidelines, which is what I've > done on the website. > > -Rob > > >> N >> > >
