DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=toastin.space; h=subject:to
	:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version:in-reply-to
	:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=ml; b=jgo2HhIK
	Om/KCu966pMAcJDTLdboVX0jzPFXAqto8Y/jikrydsI2k7ZWlX2SMOJxGh7l5nzw
	wSOD0iOj6UBuXK649YrbFzJmmfkmvr9/9Z4FS2SXWNSjP3tQ8enQyGTIfq32MSAO
	qHMg8p1DeIi1PM0TFlnJcHVPK7Z4YbR4eObxJJsUjpvB8kmmRABCyWiI8PT+tbU3
	cqKp5rW2O/+Mm9PR0qXTMZKfCRjEFSe6I3hUtOt0OyLbopfxVFz0qAHTpXnjwytn
	g82z6oF5q/4neCGrwu57MpqEDBoEoju2XwwqwtCOrRGzVtlXhtFS2xnM9HFoKIqr
	/H6RGNle6VN5yw==
Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] RFC: Project goals and guiding principles
To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org
References: <20190329094036.55ea5837@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw>
 <20190329193558.0998c8c5@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw>
 <fb5caf97-4a14-eb3f-bb32-e48e7440cb17@toastin.space>
 <20874338-c836-6082-55e9-98a027e60921@bitmessage.ch>
From: Chloe Kudryavtsev <toast@toastin.space>
Message-ID: <6144cee5-0aac-b08d-11b6-83eeb7ba7016@toastin.space>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 18:42:40 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:66.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/66.0
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20874338-c836-6082-55e9-98a027e60921@bitmessage.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---