On Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:34 PM, Nathan Torkington [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> David Grove writes:
> > I'm not sure that unanymity wouldn't be going overboard for Perl,
>
> Except that it's not unanimity of individuals, who are cantankerous
> and troublesome, but unanimity of teams. Each team has the moderating
> influences of three people to try to reach consensus. The release
> manager might work with a team that can't agree to help them reach a
> decision, but nobody would be imposing will from above.
>
> > but that would be a decision internal to the QA group, correct?
>
> The QA group ain't special. It has a role to play, but so do the code
> maintainers and the user liaison folks.
>
> > Have I tangented with this, or are we still making sense to each other?
>
> You seem still to be making sense. Are we agreed that we have a good
> ongoing model to try when we get to that stage?
>
> Nat
I agree that it's moving it a positive direction, yes. Especially when no two
or more members from a given - company is not a right word here, Nat... -
"point of view" (ActiveState, Solaris, Digital Unix - no, er, "qlique"(?))
would be on a team. How to define that would be difficult, but the effect would
have to be better than before. That would almost have to be a judgement call by
the team manager. If I understand correctly, large teams would have a small
team of "control" (bad word, but I don't know how else to put it) with a team
manager for that team, and small teams (like the ones with two or three
members, that have been pointed out) would be their own "control" team, and
unanymity of teams would be required for release, is that a good summation?
Anyway, it's definitely moving in a good direction, and shows potential to
solve a majority of problems. Yes, this is a good direction.
