Re: Questions for the DPL candidates
[-devel dropped this time]
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
Really, I think this is a necessary consequence of having small meetings
of the relevant people; [...]
I think this is interesting from a social point of view. Would
increasing the number of teams inside the project increase the number of
incidents like this? If so, would people become more or less tolerant of
them?
I'm not sure I've seen any evidence of people becoming more tolerant,
just because things happen more often. I'd be more inclined to expect
the opposite, really. Especially if the complaints are focussed on the
process rather than the outcomes; since that can't be mitigated by good
results down the track.
OTOH, doing RM work is pretty difficult at the best of times, and only
becomes more so when it becomes necessary to start proposing major and
controversial changes like this, and without the forthright support of
the DPL, rapidly approaches impossible. IMO, anyway.
Sure. If it's the opinion of the release managers that something of this
magnitude is the only way to fix the problems we face in producing new
releases, then that's something that ought to be supported. However,
in this case we've already seen a great deal of debate over whether
various bits of the proposal solve problems in the optimal way. Clearer
communication of what the problems being addressed were would have
helped here, as would presenting it as something more obviously a
proposal.
Well, it's pretty easy to say that, but it's not so easy to actually do
it. I had the opportunity to suggest Steve make sure he indicate it's a
proposal, hrm, on Monday afternoon last week I guess; and I did that,
including some suggested wording. A bunch of other people got to look
over it too, including yourself. As it was it took a week to get it out,
and people were already starting to get antsy over the delay.
What clearer communication do you expect? Should we replace Steve with
someone who has a more gilded tongue? I mean, the whole "clearer
communication!" line is great, but we spent a week trying to make that
as clear as possible, and apparently it's still "the worst possible way
to announce it" or so.
and it certainly won't be completed 'til sarge is released; so there's
plenty of time for further comments or tweaks or even reinventions.
Absolutely. I'm heartened to see that amongst the flaming, there /is/
solid technical discussion going on. We do have problems, and this is
(so far) the best proposal we've had for dealing with them. I just wish
it had been reached somewhat differently.
So, how would you have made that happen, had you been in say Martin's
shoes (which, at least as far as access to information you pretty much
were), or in mine with added Supa-DPL Powahs (ie, at the meeting, and
DPL at the time)? Or how would you encourage Steve or Andreas to do
things differently for future meetings they might organise?
It's very easy to say "do things better" and "do things differently",
but, well, it's far easier said than done.
Cheers,
aj
Reply to: