Governance revisited

[Robert Lunnon]

On Monday 25 September 2006 20:08, Ge van Geldorp wrote:
> > From: Steven Edwards <winehacker at gmail.com>
> >
> > Which is why we want to have the ambassadors project to help
> > new people in to wine. The thinking goes that if we have some
> > people to help hold the hands of new developers and the
> > developers that are defacto maintainers of a certain section
> > of code will respond to patches as they seem them, this will
> > free julliard from having to answer every single patch with a
> > reply.
>
> You can have ambassadors and subsystem maintainers all you want, but in the
> end it's still going to be Alexandre who decides if a patch goes in. That
> means the end-responsibility of informing developers why a patch was
> rejected needs to be with Alexandre. If an ambassador or subsystem
> maintainer already explained it, fine, no need to create double work for
> Alexandre, but if noone responded I'd still expect Alexandre to send a
> notification.
>
> Just for the record, my own policy on patch submission (and I really hope
> to get back to working on Wine and submitting patches Real Soon Now :-)) is
> to submit a patch once. If I get feedback I'll try to improve and resubmit,
> but if it goes the black hole route I'm not going to beg for an
> explanation. If the Wine community can't be bothered to provide feedback I
> can't be bothered to resubmit. After all, I've already scratched my itch,
> the bug is already fixed in my tree, it's the communities loss, not mine.
>

This mirrors my policy, I used to care - now I don't - That is bad, Wine needs 
developers who care.

(Patently I do care enough to start this thread)
Also the ambassador program doesn't help to improve the process , it serves to 
perpetuate it.

Bob





 
> Ge van Geldorp