On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Seth Arnold wrote:
> Call me Pollyanna (sp?) if you will,
Okay, "hi Pollyanna"... *g* not sure what this means, but I like to
accomodate.
> but I tend to like the general
> consensus method we have used thus far. To get the patches included at
> the moment requires passing muster with at least two people, the author
> and one of {greg, chris}. Getting stuff changed or pulled back out isn't
> much more work, so it isn't the end of the world if a patch sneaks in
> too quickly.
Okay: how is the general consensus determined -- answer, based on the
perceptions of two or three people (probably adequate to our needs, but
still a limited "panel of judges") Passing muster: patch-acceptance
despots... if it passes the muster of the submitter and 20 other people,
it is still rejectable by greg and chris (again, not necessarily a bad
thing.) Getting stuff CHANGED flip-flops the argument. You have
reasons that things get in, reasons that things are kept out, and reasons
that fall in between. A, B, and C. You get A+C to get them in, but you
must have B+C to get them out. It shifts the burden of "proof of
necessity", which I *thought* was "necessary in" instead of "in until
necessary out".
>
> Although, a certain amount of time for everyone to look over proposed
> patches for criticism would be sort of nice before applying the patches.
> I suppose Greg will just have to find yet another news source to read to
> keep himself busy in the morning to put off applying the patches for a
> little while. :)
>
> I don't think we need to go all the way to a voting scheme: first, I
> know I don't want to spend my time running votes and tallying ballots
> and I doubt anyone else here has that sort of time. Second, the ratio of
> votes for major contributors versus minor contributors or lurkers is a
> touchy issue, and one I would rather leave alone entirely. If someone
> sees a major problem with a proposed patch, I want that person to speak
> up with their full voice -- not just .2 voices. Third, once a consensus
> of some sort has been reached, I don't want people's positions to come
> back to haunt them later, in the variety, "on date xyz person foo voted
> bar so going back on it is Evil[tm]". (I've seen nice mail lists
> degenerate down this path..)
The "voting scheme" was a "way out" suggestion, but somewhere between
"total despotism" and "total democracy" might be useful. A
constitutionally limited ogliarchy? Beats me. Also, there are numerous
different weights to voices... there must be. Um, as far as opinions
coming back to haunt people... well, that helps people "think twice"
before registering a "final" opinion. I evolve, you evolve... a quote
from too far back might not be too insurmountable. :)
>
> Honestly, one business day's worth of time before applying a patch ought
> to be enough to see if anyone has any qualms with the patch right off
> the bat, or if more detailed analysis will be required.
Probably, but, suppose I'm the sort of guy who claims a problem with
EVERYTHING ;-) what problems are significant, what are not?
J. Melvin Jones
|>------------------------------------------------------
|| J. MELVIN JONES jmjonesat_private
|>------------------------------------------------------
|| Microcomputer Systems Consultant
|| Software Developer
|| Web Site Design, Hosting, and Administration
|| Network and Systems Administration
|>------------------------------------------------------
|| http://www.jmjones.com/
|>------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
linux-security-module mailing list
linux-security-moduleat_private
http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jul 23 2001 - 17:03:35 PDT