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

Time Line

>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

    Ian> Sam Hartman writes ("Proposal: General Resolution on Init
    Ian> Systems and systemd Facilities"):
    >> Timeline:

    Ian> Please can we have more time.

If you're worried about still finalizing wording or what happens if
we're actively in a productive discussion refiding the words of one of
the viable proposals, sure, I'd  make sure we had more time.

But I think two weeks is enough time to judge basic support and
viability of a proposal.  That is, I think within two weeks proposal
authors ought to be able to find seconds or find people who would second
if a particular likely-to-be-resolved issue is resolved.

You are right that this decision is not hugely timely.
However we've seen time and time again that the project views these long
discussions as costly.
I saw someone on IRC just yesterday saying they had recently spent 16
hours on init system GR stuff.
I was shocked.
I mean, yeah I've spent well over that time on this issue, but I've made
that my job.
If other develpers, particularly developers who are not primary
contributors to the discussion are already feeling burned out and are
spending significant time because they have to keep up, that is a real
significant cost to the project.

So, I want to be efficient about this process.  I don't think it is
worth delaying for proposals that have not demonstrated that they will
be able to close issues and get necessary support to be on a ballot.

However, yes, if there is a subcommunity that is coming towards a
consensus to refine or merge a proposal, delaying to accomplish that
seems valuable.

If we're circling around not actually making progress, I'm less
supportive of a delay.

Reply to: