[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Policy on pkgs with same filename and QA rant (was: Re: Mercury compiler (policy, anybody)?)

Chris Fearnley wrote:
> 'Christian Schwarz wrote:'
> >
> >If you want to add something to our policy manual, someone has to try to
> >formulate the idea, so we can simple discuss it. We need something more
> >"general" for our manual, as for example:
> >
> >``It is not allowed that two packages install programs with different
> >functionality but with the same filenames. (The case of two programs
> >having the same functionality but different implementations is handled via
> >`alternatives.') If this case happens, one of the programs has to be
> >renamed. The maintainers should report this to the developers' mailing
> >list where it will be dicussed. The VP of Engineering will make a final
> >decision which program has to be renamed.''
> Kill the last sentence replacing it with: "If consensus can not be
> reached, the two packages will have to conflict with each other."
> I'm appalled by the word "VP" occuring anywhere in the the policy
> manual.  Someone else recently said that we should make our decisions
> based on technical reasons.  I concur.  I'm disappointed to see so many
> compromises on quality lately (right after our long thread on QA).
> Engineering excellence requires an uncompromising approach to
> problems:  complete solutions must be sought (solutions that satisfy
> all parties).  And consensus is the best way to accomplish said
> excellence (I cite the Internet STD documents and Linux kernel
> development as proof).  Is my fear being realized:  that the existence
> of a quality control manager will decrease quality because one can
> lobby the QA manager to get a hack "approved"?
Very unlikely.  We're to big to get TOTAL concensus.  Ask 5 Engineers
and you'll get at least 7 good solutions.  Therefore, we need someone
responsible to call the shots once several solutions have been
discussed.  Discussed does not mean beat it to death.  Even without a
religous war, there are still disagreements.  We need somone responsible
for making that call.  Therefore, "(solutions that satisfy all parties)"
is not a viable alternative.

Finally, consensus is only useful for small group of experts.  After
that, political desires tend to be big influences.

> We all need to be QA managers.  We all need to be Distribution
> managers.
Agreed.  Each one should baby-sit themself.  We need administration more
as a resolution tool.  Total agreement of Board is much more likely. 
Also, we can only manage our part.  We need admin to coordinate.  If we
waited for everything to be 'up-to-date' we'd never have a release.

> PS.  Dale, can you make sure the Board emphasizes the importance of
> consensus in this constitution they are working on.
Yes, however, consensus != (solutions that satisfy all parties)

Reply to: