On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 13:14 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > My experience is that consensus/votes will be overruled by final
> > committer, if they disagree,
>
> That's a fairly strong statement.
I was attempting to be open and honest to allow us to face our faults,
as proposed, because I care about the health and efficiency of the
project. I expected your response and know you think my comments to be
blunt at times. We should worry about the people that don't speak their
mind, not those that do.
> I can't think of an occasion when this
> has happened on any matter of significance, and I can remember many
> times when Tom, Bruce and others have bowed to the consensus despite
> their own preferences.
It depends on what you regard as matters of significance and which parts
of the code you pay attention to. Committers can act as they choose; I
am merely pointing out that it isn't possible for non-committers to
follow through on any responsibility they may attempt to assert.
Specifically, trying to propose solutions, achieve consensus and develop
patches only works if the committer will agree with conclusions at the
end and you won't know until you get there. You can do a ton of work and
it can all be for nothing if the consensus opposes the committer. After
a while you reach the conclusion: Why do the work, why not just wait for
the opinion and then act? Less work and same speed.
> Bruce said the other day that we are trustees of the code, and I don't
> think I could put it better. I know I am conscious of that.
I doubt anyone reading this list feels any differently.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support