From owner-cvs-all Mon Dec 28 15:38:52 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA12560 for cvs-all-outgoing; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 15:38:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA12554 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 15:38:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@whistle.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by alpo.whistle.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA14884; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 15:29:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from current1.whistle.com(207.76.205.22) via SMTP by alpo.whistle.com, id smtpdu14881; Mon Dec 28 23:29:03 1998 Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 15:28:59 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" cc: Warner Losh , committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The recent fracas involving danes, war axes and wounded developers In-Reply-To: <14249.914821086@zippy.cdrom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk yeah is this retrospective? :-) On Sun, 27 Dec 1998, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > So what have we learned? Can you be more specific so that those of us > > not on core will know how to handle things like this in the future? > > IE I want to kill GerbilFS, which is badly rotted, what are the > > criteria for its death and what is the proceedure to make sure that > > things doen't get as bloody as FreeBSD's recent purge. > > Sorry, this is another issue a number of us just discussed and came to > a preliminary ruling on - I didn't have an answer to your question > just 5 minutes ago or I'd have put it on my "timeline" :-) > > The criteria for the death of bits in FreeBSD from now on, according > to David Greenman, our principal architect and general guy in charge > of tie-breaking decisions when such are necessary, is that it be done > directly by original author/committer of the bits (and not by any > arbitrary 3rd party) unless, and only unless, a *unanimous* core team > vote for its removal is made. Such a vote would be preceded by a 72 > hour discussion period, during which time committers list would be > also brought into the discussion in order to express their opinions, > the final decision still being up to the core team and its vote. > > I personally think that's the only truly fair way to go about this in > the future and also it fits nicely with dictum that "a man should > always shoot his own dog" - if someone commits something that turns to > dreck then they should be the ones to clean it up when the time > comes. There will be the occasionally necessary exceptions, of course, > such as when an author designates a proxy to do the deed on his behalf > due to other time pressures, or when something gets yanked for driving > technical reasons (major security flaw, entirely superceded by other > functionality, etc), but this is the basic idea. > > Comments? > > - Jordan > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message