Next focus: PROCESS

[Jesse Phillips]

On Sunday, 16 December 2012 at 07:35:27 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> I shouldn't be here explaining why this is wrong, you should be 
> here explaining me why it can be applied anyway.


We are developing a process, specifying what it will look like.

If I'm building an airplane and say I think it should be kind of 
like a car, I'd expect your response would be.

You can't build an airplane with wheels, windshield, and a cabin 
for passengers. Cars have those and meant for driving on the 
ground with very sticked adherence to the laws of gravity.

What I expect you to say, we shouldn't be building an airplane, 
helicopters are much better at traveling and landing in tight 
places and that is what we need. Airplanes are good for when we 
need long distance.

Instead I hear, plans are good for long distance we shouldn't 
build them.

> Otherwise, anyone can come with any point, whatever how stupid 
> it is, and each time we have to prove that person wrong. When 
> you come with something, you have to explain why it make sens, 
> not the other way around.

We have explained why it makes sense, the goals are already up on 
the wiki.

So you should review those goals and explain why the plan does 
not meet those, or correct the goals. You are doing neither.

> Back to the point, and it will be the last time. A distro is a 
> set of programs. The goal of the distro is to provide a set of 
> programs, as up to date as possible, that integrate nicely with 
> each other, and with as few bugs as possible. Some of these 
> goals are in conflict, so we see different pattern emerge, with 
> different tradeoff, as ubuntu and debians's processes.

I said you don't have to repeat yourself.