On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Peter Stuge <pe...@stuge.se> wrote: > Ludovic Rousseau wrote: >> 2012/5/27 Jean-Michel Pouré - GOOZE <jmpo...@gooze.eu>: >> > Sufficient privileges in GIThub should be granted to a group of people. >> > Trust is enough to agree on commits. FOAS means "Free" and "Open". >> >> FOAS = ? > > I guess FOSS. > > The "open" does however not mean that the entire world must have > write access, it's about read access. > > "Trust is enough to agree on commits." makes no sense whatsoever to me. > > The closest that makes sense to me would be: > > Trust comes from agreeing on commits. > > Of course everyone has different priorities. It makes me sad that > quality isn't the top priority for everyone in the project.
Peter, quality is not absolute term. It can be mathematic definition of the best algorithm, which can lead to infinite theoretical discussion for each line of code. It might be physical definition of what is "good enough", and even then, the border is also not absolute, as what good enough for one is not good enough to other. And it can be the service provided to users and the responsive to user's issues. I, personally, for (3), providing a great service and responsiveness while perfecting the code as 2nd priority (exception are interfaces). I think this approach was taken at opensc in the past. I also like the (2) approach, while trusting the active core developers to define what is "good enough", and if someone thinks otherwise he is free to become core developer or show the code of his alternatives to the point it is accepted by the core developers. Agree on commits is not something that can become reality as without someone who can actually DECIDE, there can be non-ending arguments for each change. We have this exact issue at OpenVPN project, which also reached a complete stop as it does not have core developers and clear responsibility for subsystems. I am sad as this project (as it seems) reached a complete stop. Programming is human creative work, there can be N^^N ways to acquire a goal, very hard to evaluate what is "correct" or "better" in most of the cases, it depends on the people involved and the people who actually review at specific point in time... Same change can be accepted at week X and rejected at week Y as other people review. Because of that trust in the "core developers" of a project is essential, as it is the only constant factor in the process. Not sure what this discussion was, but I wanted to comment your statement. Regards, Alon. _______________________________________________ opensc-devel mailing list opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
