always assume good faith

["Aurélio A. Heckert"]

Well... I must to reinforce Terceiro's message, remembering another 
point defined on the same meeting where the procedures for new features 
was created. On that day we also agreed that we need explicit clear 
rules (/that was pointed by Rodrigo, and accepted by all/), and the 
Colivre is the only with the costs to review merge requests. The 
_*review*_ is the real funnel for merging bugfixes and new features, and 
with some contribution from other community members (in this work 
process) the merge can come faster.

On that day i proposed a form to make this review easier. I did and told 
to the fellow community:
http://listas.softwarelivre.org/pipermail/noosfero-dev/2013-October/000692.html

Far as I know, that was never used... :-(
How can we talk about adding new commiters, if we have only the current 
small group of commiters with experience in code review*?*

Cheers...
  Aurium

PS: "corporation" was a nice word selection to be not nice.

Em 19-06-2014 21:48, Antonio Terceiro escreveu:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 04:09:21PM -0300, Bráulio Bhavamitra wrote:
>> About procedure, a very important thing must be noticed:
>> ==The real procedure that *is working* for Noosfero was proposed almost
>> exclusively by Colivre team.==
>>
>> The procedure EITA and others (and not only EITA) are proposing is trying
>> to change *a bit* that because we see it is not working well in some points.
>>
>> Terceiro, I, besides Daniel in EITA, propose something different.
>> Summarizing, I think Noosfero is following a very bad model, which is not
>> applied in many free softwares, and that is a centralized model based on
>> one corporation, *which of needs to be payed for this model to work*.
> I feel we are trapped in an infinite loop. We already discussed this
> several times and we do not agree. In my opinion this is just not true,
> but you keep insisting on it.
>
> The "centralization" is very limited since the _only_ actual
> centralization is the final code acceptance, and that is only
> centralized because nobody else wants to help with the steps that are a
> pre-requisite for that but and could be done by anyone (still, Colivre
> is the only one reviewing and testing code from others).
>
>> I think that is a very bad reality of some "free software", and I saw
>> many times that it led to many problems, including *project
>> deterioration and forks*.
>>
>> I've already proposed a less rigid and descentralized like we see in
>> many successful free software.
> And still didn't had convince others that it would bring any benefit.
>
> I think if there are people that are we willing to make the effort
> necessary to do a better job at managing the project, they should feel
> free to fork and create something better. If you can't convince others
> that your way is the better way, you are free to take the current state
> of the code and follow your own path. IMO that is a feature, not a bug:
> a very good way of knowing that something is better than something else
> is *actually trying* that something else.
>
> Of course, it is much better to actually help and contribute to the
> existing project by doing the work that most people don't do.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noosfero-dev mailing list
> Noosfero-dev em listas.softwarelivre.org
> http://listas.softwarelivre.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/noosfero-dev


-- 

*Aurélio A. Heckert (aka Aurium)*
http://softwarelivre.org/aurium
*COLIVRE --- Coop. de Tecnologias Livres*
http://colivre.coop.br

*Inkscape* --- Desenhe Livremente
http://inkscapeBrasil.org
-------------- Pr?xima Parte ----------
Um anexo em HTML foi limpo...
URL: <http://listas.softwarelivre.org/pipermail/noosfero-dev/attachments/20140621/887257a5/attachment.html>
-------------- Pr?xima Parte ----------
Um anexo n?o-texto foi limpo...
Nome: logoColivre_p.gif
Tipo: image/gif
Tamanho: 5576 bytes
Descri??o: n?o dispon?vel
URL: <http://listas.softwarelivre.org/pipermail/noosfero-dev/attachments/20140621/887257a5/attachment.gif>