[haiku-development] Re: Haiku R1/alpha discussion summary (was: Re: Haiku R1/alpha decisions)
- From: "Niels Reedijk" <niels.reedijk@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 18:12:05 +0200
Hi Stephan,
2008/8/8 Stephan Assmus <superstippi@xxxxxx>:
> Very nice work on the Whiteboard page! I would like to propose to remove
> the WebKit idea for the time being. If we wanted to drop Firefox, update
> and finish WebKit and build a capable browser on top of it, that would
> seriously hold everything up. Therefor I think this idea was just too
> immature for even including in the list. Obviously I mean no disrespect for
> Ryan's work, but come purely from a "what would hold up the release too
> much" perspective.
I agree with the argument you put forward, and I would not like to
wait for it either, but we will have to agree how the policy is
determined. Axel's email starter was about making decisions on alpha
1, it is now it might be time to decide how we are going to make these
decisions (pun?).
There are three methods:
1. Vote, most probably by the development team. There would be a list
of proposals, there would be discussion, and finally every member
casts a vote. For optima forma, every proposal needs to be backed by a
developer that will carry it out (or oversee that it happens). In this
scenario, Webkit (for example) will most likely not find an adopter.
The DR1 naming will, and then might be voted for or against.
2. Benevolent dictator (team). An individual, or a group, will make
some decisions about which key features alpha 1 needs. How they are
appointed or selected, is another discussion. In this scenario,
whatever the representatives of the free mind agree on, will be a
decision.
3. Compromise through discussion. Items will be discussed until the
vocal participants in the discussion agree on an item.
My take:
#3: There is a long list of items, discussions tend to stray and die
out, when is something decided? What if a new person starts
participating in the discussion?
#2: In Haiku, much of the core work is done by a small minority. This
model might fit better than the democratic model, BUT it is hard to
decide who are core people. Also, there might be too much politics and
overhead trying to do such a thing.
#1: Might not be perfect, but at least keeps things clear. Still need
to decide who gets to vote.
Anyway, I feel that this might lead to a big discussion, but I think
it is critical in keeping this ball rolling. I wish you well,
Niels
Other related posts:
