Re: How to define a release architecture
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:39:58PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > No. There needs to be some override procedure like we have for maintainers not
> > > doing their job. But that's beyond the scope of this discussion.
> >
> > In this case, there is nothing to override, because the overrides are
> > actually changing something in the teams so that the team changes their mind
> > (that might actually mean there is nobody who opposed the change in the team
> > anymore, in a worst-case scenario).
> >
> > So, this should not be a point of contention in this sphere at all. It
> > belongs in some other level. Let's drop this point as a contention point,
> > then?
>
> No, this is the main problem, that there is no counter power or limitation to
> what they can decide. We saw this already in the amd64 GR issue, and we can
> either accept their decission or have them resign in masse and be prepared to
> replace them.
Then start another thread in -project about the accountability issue.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
Reply to: