Re: clear policy discussions

[Graham Percival]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:51:11PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:


I'll only address "meta-discussion" points here.

> > What about the next one?  Phil has been learning how to do it, and I
> > certainly won't call *him* a trained monkey... but his expertise is
> > documentation and build systems.
> 
> So you want to design a rule set that will let him do good work without
> feedback?  Without consulting anybody?  Without trying to form a
> judgment?  Do you really think that after all this time he can't do a
> better job than a switchboard?

...

I think the monkey analogy has been taken too far, and it is
veering uncomfortably close towards personal attacks.  I apologize
for my previous use of that analogy.


As for a "simple rule set" -- yes, the original intent was to have
a sufficiently simple rule-set that nobody would feel intimidated
by it.  I have been trying to get other people to handle releases
for ages.  This involves hard technical challenges (dealing with
GUB, although I've tried to keep this as simple as possible
there's still a lot of difficulties there), and potentially-vague
release policies.  I tried to keep those policies as unambiguous
as possible.

I took exactly the same approach to the Bug Squad.  Not enough
volunteers?  try to make the job as simple as possible.

> > I evidently wasn't clear in introducing GOP and their policies; a
> > complete rejection of any proposal is certainly valid!  The GOP
> > proposals are intended to begin debate, not end them.
> 
> What if they make one feel that one does not even know how to start?

Since the idea is to facilitate discussion, that is enough
feedback.  A simple one-line "what's the point of this?" or "what
exactly are you suggesting" or just "I don't understand".  In my
mind, that should trigger an automatic re-think / re-write of the
proposal.

- Graham