Re: Discussing issues

Carl Worth writes:
 > On Apr 16, Egbert Eich wrote:
 >  > But, XFree86 isn't exactly new. We have gone thru these things before.
 >  > We have made shared decisions, we have had ways to deal with deciding
 >  > about interfaces, extensions etc.
 > 
 > Egbert,
 > 
 > Thanks for your comments.
 > 
 > As I read that, it occurs to me that much of the current problem, (as
 > I see it), comes from the fact that the process of making shared
 > decisions has not been visible to people outside of the XFree86 core
 > team.

Well, decisions should really be made on [email protected].
The core team is there to keep an eye on the  'big picture'.
The core team did some 'brain storming' about things that
we want to look at for 5.0. But this was - like much of the
stuff on this list - more or less talking, not coding.

We did so to concentrate on feasable things without getting in
too much noise (same reason as with the confcalls).
In fact Alan Hourihane has posted his minutes form the disucssion.
However no real decisions were made, we just collected a bunch of
stuff.
 > 
 > The opening up of the devel list could certainly help with the
 > transparency issue, but it seems that it has not been open long enough
 > for any significant shared decision to be made there. So there's not
 > much for an outsider like me to use as a basis for determining the
 > level of functionality of the resolution processes within XFree86.

Yes, the devel list has been much less active recently.
However if you have development issues to discuss I would like
to invite you to put them up there.
The problem I currently see on devel is that we don't have enough
experts around on many areas on which questions arise.
The misconceived 'xpert' list which may have alienated many people
interested in development may have added to this.

 > 
 >  > Nothing of this is formalized/ codified lots of it is dictated by
 >  > common sense.
 > 
 > This lack of formalization is a specific point brought up by Keith
 > Packard:
 > 
 > 	I don't blame the current leadership for this
 > 	problem; there are no guidelines or processes in
 > 	place to deal with conflict in the development
 > 	community. As the project has grown, it has failed
 > 	to adapt to that growth by building formal
 > 	structures necessary to govern a large and diverse
 > 	group of people. (http://lwn.net/Articles/26918/)
 > 
 > As I've listened to the recent teleconferences, my perception is that
 > the call for a change in governance is not about a personal rejection
 > of those currently in leadership; but it is a recognition that a
 > project as large and important as X needs formal structure for
 > resolving conflict, (since in the normal course of development any
 > "governance" body should just stay out of the way and let the
 > programmers get their work done).
 > 
 > So, my personal questions are:
 > 
 > 1) Does the XFree86 core team or board of directors think there is any
 >    need for changing/formalizing conflict resolution procedures?
 > 
 > 2) If so, is there anything currently being done to address this?
 > 

Well, Carl, I can only give my personal views on this:
The 'governance matter' has recieved way too much attention.
Havoc has already stated that in 99% of the cases things can
get worked out collectively. So why even bother?

My main critizism about the telecons is that a new project
is started by setting up a 'governance structure' - effectively
by cloning the 'Gnome Foundation' model. Isn't this a 'wag the
dog' apporach? 

I think to know why the emphasis is so strongly on the governance
issue: it is the revocation of Keith's commit rights that stirred
up this. If one reviews the events that led to this he probably
would have lost these on some other projects, too - maybe not for
what he finally did. However a lot of the things went on in private 
conversations and now no one knows the full story. This was clearly 
wrong. Things may not have gotten that far if 'social control' on 
this project really had worked.
This is one lesson I have learned from this all. 

There are more lessons to learn: 
I think there should be joint forum for GUI folks and X folks to 
meet, and in my opinion the core team should monitor this forum 
and participate in the discussions.
And maybe you are right: We may have to codify some processes
around CVS commit and how interface design/modifications should
be announced.

Egbert.