Subject: Re: Starting to modularize legacy
On Feb 24, 2006, at 2:40 PM, Mark Norton wrote:
Charles Severance wrote:
Makes sense. Package name changes are not quite as bad though,
Depends - lets just talk each through as a proposal on this list
and see where we go. One problem is that there is a set of folks
who will always say "no" to any change and yet we have to make
progress. We will have to understand that the members of the
list do not have pocket veto on changes or progress. The commit
list in the framework are the ones who will decide when/how we go
forward. If we allow a few "no" votes to stop progress we will
go no where. Discussion is great and exploring options is great
- but categoric "no" votes with no rationale will be ignored.
Given that those on the commit list will make the final decisions,
who is on the commit list for the legacy services and common?
Legacy- Led by Glenn, mostly Michigan staff and several IU staff.
Common - Led by Lance, mostly IU staff.
Read the follow ups to this. To my way of looking at it, there
is no good time to be making these sorts of changes. Therefore
we have to be careful and rigorous every time. Does it make
sense to capture (document) how we go about this sort of thing?
In general, I mean.
This group is the "document" - we need to have open conversations
about all of these things. We need a group value to stop jumping
on every post and turning it into a vote or governance
discussion. We need a lot of discussion.
Discussion is a good thing. I also think that most developers
would agree that documentation is a good thing, too. Saying
something like "this group is the document" doesn't make a lot of
sense to me, Chuck. How is someone supposed to learn how to
contribute in a safe and meaningful way if he (or she) has to dig
back through months of email archived on a collab site?
ocumenting things doesn't turn it into a vote or a governance
issue. It just makes things easier for everyone. I think we need
a group value to write things down in a way that indicates what we
believe is right.
We can certainly have design documents but too often if we wait for
design documents people complain that they were not involved "early
enough" - so I suggest hat we get better at talking things out on the
list and coming to consensus and then producing documents.
This automatic notification message was sent by Sakai Collab
) from the WG: Framework site.
You can modify how you receive notifications at My Workspace > Preferences.