[openbeos] Re: RFC archieve and public access

I want to take this point by point:

>       [Zenja Solaja]  Hi everyone.  I believe that we urgently need to
>solve a very serious problem - the archieving of great ideas floating around
>GE and OBOS lists.  This issue was brought up in another thread and I'd like
>to move it to its own thread.
>
>       What I'm proposing is:
>
>       1. We establish a public repository (the GE or OBOS website) where
>we publish a set of RFC documents.

That is supposed to be what GE is.

>       2. Each RFC would address a certain domain, ie a FileSystem layout
>RFC, a Deskbar GUI RFC, Window Border RFC etc.  

Fine.

>       3. Each RFC would be itemised (1.2.3, 1.2.4).

Good.

>       4. When discussing an item, the email header would reference the
>item in question.

Sensible.

>       5. We'd limit discussion to one item at a time until a consensus is
>met.  We would cycle through the entire RFC twice.

Whoa.

>       6. A greater than 2/3 majority is essential (>66%).  Therefore,
>quorum is at least 4 people voting.  Here are some illustrative numbers to
>accept an item: 3/4 (75%), 4/5 (80%), 5/6 (83%), 5/7 (71%), 6/8 (75%) etc.
>Notice how 4/6 doesn't pass the >2/3 barrier.  To loby for an item, simply
>get more supporters to vote for it.

I don't think so.


>       7. Once the community agrees on a RFC, it becomes a SRS (system
>requirements specification).  Ambitious developers can now tackle a project
>of their choosing.

Nope.

>       Comments from webdevelopers (people responsible for implementing
>this system), administrators, and everyone else.
>
>       <PS - continue discussion on GE mailing list (Reply to:
>glasselevator@xxxxxxxxxxxx)>

I want to keep this on the general list, because there is some confusion on 
this point.
GE has been and is all about collecting new ideas for R2. Collection, 
discussion, organization.
Not building. Not voting, not deciding. 
First off, there is nothing to build ON. In order to start implementing, you 
would need a finished R1.
That has yet to happen, unless I missed something.
Secondly, who votes? 
Personally, I am thinking meritocracy. People who contribute more, get more 
pull. More say.
That doesn't include JUST code, but people who have written code in a 
particular area should have
a good amount of say about what they work on.

Think about it. You are working on something that is "yours". That you have 
vested heart and soul in.
And a group of people come along who have never contributed one thing to the 
project and "outvote" you?
I don't think so. That is not fair to developers, and not fair to the 
community. 

I like the idea of collecting good ideas. Be did that all the time. Then they 
decided what was possible, what
the best approach was and how to do it. Not always the way you might like, but 
you also don't necessarily 
know why, either.

Other related posts: