Mail archive

Re: [alpine-devel] RFC: Project goals and guiding principles

From: Oliver Smith <>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 23:53:00 +0000

Thanks for the detailed answer!

With the given explanation, "Do the right thing over doing the written
thing" makes sense to me, and FWIW I'm fine with having it in the rules.

I appreciate everyone's efforts to speeding up the patch review process.


Chloe Kudryavtsev:
> On 3/30/2019 5:53 PM, Oliver Smith wrote:
>> Regarding "Do the right thing over doing the written thing". What is the
>> written thing? If it is the rules outlined in the initial post, then I
>> don't see a valid reason to go against these rules.
> We're in the process of trying to re-organize internal structure.
> This is done for a variety of reasons (for instance, due to the internal
> process, PRs can take exorbitant amounts of time to get through) - and
> the goal of the re-organization is to improve that.
> The path towards that has ended up being through a change in governance
> model (decentralizing efforts and avoiding bottlenecks, among other
> things).
> While this process has been public (in that everything that happened is
> available to the public (including comments), and a few callouts have
> been made), no full/finalized proposal has been sent in for ratification
> yet.
> In order to expedite the conversation, we decided to add project goals,
> as well as guiding principles.
> This way parts (or, ideally, all) of the proposal could be justified
> through them, thus defeating any arguments ahead of time.
> The example given was someone that would push for harsher conditions
> under the impression that that would create higher efficiency.
> In short, the "written thing" would be the (longer) contents of the new
> governance and organization proposal.
>> Chloe also wrote:
>>> On 3/29/2019 2:35 PM, Natanael Copa wrote:
>>> The axioms involved are as such:
>>> - There is always a correct course of action, based on the project
>>> goals.
>>> - It is possible to identify this course of action.
>>> - This course of action could, in theory, require breaking an
>>> existing rule or policy.
>>> Under the latter conditions, the idea here is to allow people to do
>>> said correct thing without (necessarily) waiting on consensus.
>> IMHO that makes it more complicated than necessary. I don't think that
>> the Alpine team would deadlock itself because of a rule they made
>> earlier that does not hold up anymore. So I would rather remove the "Do
>> the right thing..." line.
> One of the side effects we want (and foresee) of the re-organization is
> a higher influx of contributors *with* git access (but not necessarily
> git access to most/everything).
> While the bar for inclusion would be relatively high (decent volumes of
> prior good work), once you have access you would be expected to handle
> PRs, which inherently would require a sort of decentralized decision
> making.
> This *can* cause deadlock (mostly because it's not a "single" alpine
> team anymore), and the idea is to allow for an acceleration of resolving
> potentially problematic situations, in which it's the obviously correct
> thing to do (even if, say, it breaks a specific policy in an unexpected
> way).
> This has, however, been the most discussed and controversial principle.
> For more details as to where and why it came from, see Drew Devault's
> latest email (he was the one that suggested its inclusion).
> ---
> Unsubscribe:
> Help:
> ---

Received on Sat Mar 30 2019 - 23:53:00 UTC