On Thursday 21 September 2006 03:48, Jeremy White wrote: > >>Wine works fine as-is in my opinion ;) > > > > Which you are entitled to, but my opinion happens to differ. Whether the > > wine core source has all the patches, (Which it doesn't - many, but not > > all) isn't relevant, it's the process that they go through that I believe > > could improve. > > For the record, Governance is something we often spend a chunk of > time on at each Wine conference. > > Brian has written a nice summary of Wineconf on WWN > (thanks Brian!), including a reprise of the talk on governance. > > Being insufferably long winded, and feeling the need to create > a complete record, I would add a few things to what Brian wrote. > > First, I think there was clear and essentially unanimous agreement > that the current high standards for quality were a Good Thing (TM), > including the Holy Order of Writing Conformance Tests. > > Second, I think we had fairly clear agreement that so long as > he can handle it, it is most efficient to have Alexandre as > the sole maintainer. Obviously, the more help he gets > from component maintainers (e.g. Mike/MSI, Rob/COM), the better. > > Third, I think there was clear agreement that Alexandre is > often a Royal Pain In the Ass (RPITA). He ignores patches, > responds tersely, and sometimes delivers the occassional > kiss of death: "I can't tell you what to change, > but your patch is wrong." > > However, we, the assembled 30 or so of the most core Wine > developers, could not think of a single case where Alexandre > had been proven wrong. Nor could we think of a single > instance when he had failed to be persuaded by reasonable argument; > making a rather compelling case that he is generally right. > > We also talk, from time to time, about building some sort > of patch tracking system to allow for better management > of patches. Something like a 'ticket' system, so > people could see the status of their email, whether or > not it had been reviewed, etc, etc. I think there is some > sense that this might be useful, but it's a sufficiently > complex problem, and it has to be written in emacs, > that we always defer it for the future. > > So I think the strong (if not unamimous) consensus was to > continue on as we are, but make an effort to provide > an 'ambassador' program of some kind, particularly around > folks that are new to Wine. > > If you have a specific concrete suggestion for change, > this would be a fine time to put it forward. > > But if your proposal is largely: "Alexandre should accept > more patches", I think you'll find that none of the core > Wine developers will support you in that, so it's not > worth the effort, at least not in this venue. > > Cheers, > > Jeremy
I have never said anything of the sort, patches should be accepted according to a policy, and they are, but the policy is largely unstated, and (In my opinion) - wrong. What I have suggested is a changed governance model where Wine development is guided by the collective will toward a community goal and that patch acceptance policy is set by the community - including the user community. On community, the wine project doesn't represent a community in the sense that Wine has an altruistic purpose to provide value to that community - It doesn't do that because the wine developer base doesn't measure important to Wine users and set policy to provide that value. This means Wine isn't a particularly good Product. Wine is a developers play-thing, Crossover is a Product ! Bob