Governance revisited (Wineconf report)

[Jeff Latimer]

Scott Ritchie wrote:

>On Sat, 2006-09-23 at 11:24 +0200, Kai Blin wrote:
>  
>
>>On Saturday 23 September 2006 10:32, Scott Ritchie wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Frankly, all we really need is for Alexandre to write a 10-second reply
>>>to wine-devel for each patch he rejects.
>>>      
>>>
>>On WineConf, we decided against this. That would still slow down the overall 
>>patch submission speed. Consider you have a patch that's just fine, but 
>>before you sent that, I sent in ten patches with C++ style comments. 
>>Alexandre would now have to reply to ten patches with "No C++ style comments" 
>>before processing your patch. Everybody reading wine-patches could point out 
>>what was wrong with my patches.
>>
>>Now, we agreed to try something different, two things actually. The first 
>>thing is the "ambassador" thing Steve and a couple of other people mentioned 
>>before. New contributors would be contacted by someone who would explain the 
>>way wine works to them. Secondly, we wanted to make a standard practice of 
>>what Mike's been doing for MSI patches. A developer proficient in a certain 
>>area of wine will reply to all the patches for his area, do a review and also 
>>makes sure they don't disappear into the void.
>>    
>>
>Well, as long as SOMEONE writes the 10-second reply, I suppose it
>doesn't matter.  But until we appoint the equivalent of Mike and MSI for
>every part of Wine, Alexandre ends up being the default person to do it.
>
>Thanks,
>Scott Ritchie
>
>  
>
Well, the way it works at present, nobody is obliged to write a 10 
second reply and often don't.  There has to be feedback to keep the 
process moving.  I don't receive it and patches languish unapplied, 
delaying me considerably on tackling new work as I wait for acceptance 
before proceeding.

Jeff Latimer