Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 13:05:08 -0400 From: Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@gmail.com> To: attilio@freebsd.org Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: On cooperative work [Was: Re: newbus' ivar's limitation..] Message-ID: <CACqU3MWo=ieaduuwZDF6SfzUUS5y1qzP5e2Ddg6Aphnz_O2PJw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-FndCHxpTfc%2Bb5zgiX2NheaQN1LcJXBRubef4_GAYCy_pb2g@mail.gmail.com> References: <CACqU3MUh1XPScRHNc-ivOYLmbG0_UqpwBNWeoPA84uSOESH_bg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-FndCHxpTfc%2Bb5zgiX2NheaQN1LcJXBRubef4_GAYCy_pb2g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> >>> You don't want to work cooperatively. >>> >> Why is it that mbuf's refactoring consultation is being held in >> internal, private, committers-and-invite-only-restricted meeting at >> BSDCan ? >> >> Why is it that so much review and discussion on changes are held privately ? > > Arnaud, > belive me, to date I don't recall a single major technical decision > that has been settled exclusively in private (not subjected to peer > review) and in particular in person (e-mail help you focus on a lot of > different details that you may not have under control when talking to > people, etc). > Whose call is it to declare something worth public discussion ? No one. Every time I see a "Suggested by:", "Submitted by:", "Reported by:", and especially "Approved by:", there should to be a public reference of the mentioned communication. > Sometimes it is useful that a limited number of developers is involved > in initial brainstorming of some works, > Never. > but after this period > constructive people usually ask for peer review publishing their plans > on the mailing lists or other media. > Again, never. By doing so, you merely put the community in a situation where, well, "We, committers, have come with this, you can either accept or STFU, but no major changes will be made because we decided so." The callout-ng conference at BSDCan was just beautiful, it was basically: Speaker: "we will do this" Audience: "how about this situation ? What you will do will not work." Speaker: "thank you for listening, end of the conference" It was beautiful to witness. > If you don't see any public further discussion this may be meaning: > a) the BSDCan meetings have been fruitless and there is no precise > plan/roadmap/etc. > so not only you make it private, but it shamelessly failed... > b) there is still not consensus on details > Then the discussion should stop, public records are kept for reference in the future. There is no problem with this. > and you can always publically asked on what was decided and what not. > Just send a mail to interested recipients and CC any FreeBSD mailing > list. > This is not the way "openness" should be about. - Arnaud > Attilio > > > -- > Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CACqU3MWo=ieaduuwZDF6SfzUUS5y1qzP5e2Ddg6Aphnz_O2PJw>